Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

County of London Electric Supply Company Bill [Lords](by Order),

London Electricity Supply (No. 1) Bill [Lords](by Order),

London Electricity Supply (No. 2) Bill [Lords](by Order),

North Metropolitan Electric Power Supply Company Bill [Lords](by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Tuesday, 28th October.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS APPEALS (VOLUNTARY AID DETACHMENTS).

Mr. LUMLEY: 1.
asked the Minister of Pensions if he will allow by his special authority members of voluntary aid detachments who make applications for pensions to appeal to the Pensions Appeal Tribunal against decisions arrived at by the Ministry?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Mr. Roberts): I have, I fear, no authority to adopt the course suggested by the hon. Member. The powers exercised by the independent appeal tribunals, and the cases which they may hear and determine, are laid down by the War Pensions Acts, and do not cover grants made to the persons referred to.

Mr. LUMLEY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say under what power he is able to allow the tribunal to deal with applications of the kind?

Mr. ROBERTS: I cannot answer that point now, but if the hon. Member could give me notice of the question, I will look into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN (MINISTRY OF PENSIONS).

Lieut. - Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 2.
asked the Minister of Pensions with regard to the deputation of the Association of Ex-Service Civil Servants, which was received by him on tile 8th May last, and was informed that three non-service temporary officials then employed by the Ministry were under notice of termination of their appointments, which information was subsequently confirmed in writing on the 3rd June last, if he will say whether the three cases referred to included that of the non-service temporary official who was recently transferred from the Wales region, Ministry of Pensions, to the headquarters of the Ministry; whether the official in question is in fact under notice; and the date on which such notice, if any, will be made effective?

Mr. ROBERTS: The answer to the first part of the hon. and gallant Member's question is in the affirmative. As I stated in a reply to a question on the same subject on the 31st ultimo, the officer is being temporarily retained on work for which he has exceptional qualifications. His retention is definitely in the public interest, and while he is at present under notice for the 30th September, I am not in a position to say that a further extension of his services may not be required. In any event, I do not contemplate that a fresh appointment will be necessary when he goes.

Sir F. HALL: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the position which he is now holding was created for this gentleman?

Mr. ROBERTS: No; but work arose of a very exceptional nature, and if the hon. and gallant Member will have a chat with me, I will explain matters to him.

Sir F. HALL: Has this position been created for this official?

Mr. ROBERTS: No.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONS.

GIFTS OF FRUIT.

Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: 3.
asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that permission was given by the Prison Commissioners in 1922 for a gift of oranges and other fruit to be made to the prisoners in all English prisons; that this caused much happiness to the prisoners and was also generally welcomed by prison officers; and that permission was refused in 1923 for any similar gift to be made; what was the reason for the refusal; and whether the matter will now be reconsidered with a view to permitting gifts of fruit to prisoners next Christmas?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Rhys Davies): At Christmas, 1922, prisoners were allowed to receive gifts of fruit. The experiment was not altogether successful, and it is not intended to repeat it.

Mr. HARVEY: Can the hon. Member say why the experiment was not successful?

Mr. DAVIES: It would be very difficult to distribute these goods to the prisoners, and it would create a great deal of jealousy.

Mr. LANSBURY: Would it not be possible for the country on this day to give the prisoners some fruit, so that all might have some? Prison is a very deadly hole at any time.

Mr. J. HARRIS: Can the hon. Member say whether a very large quantity of fruit was supplied for this purpose?

Mr. DAVIES: I will convey the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) to my right hon. Friend.

UNCONVICTED PRISONERS (SMOKING).

Sir ROBERT NEWMAN: 4.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that unconvicted prisoners in Scotland are allowed to smoke on exercise; and whether he can see his way to permit the same privilege to unconvicted prisoners in England?

Mr. DAVIES: I am aware that arrangements have been made by the
Scottish prison administration to allow unconvicted prisoners to smoke. The English Commissioners are considering the matter.

Mr. FOOT: Will the hon. Member represent to the Commissioners that whilst a man is under remand he is presumed to be innocent, and being presumed to be innocent in English law will this concession be made?

Mr. DAVIES: I appreciate that point of view, and will go into it.

Sir R. NEWMAN: Will the hon. Member represent to the Commissioners the fact that a good many of these people who are waiting trial in custody are not sufficiently well off to find bail, and that to deprive them of this privilege, merely because they have not money, is very unjust?

Mr. DAVIES: This is one of the problems to which I am giving personal attention.

MEALS.

Sir R. NEWMAN: 5.
asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that the convicts at Peterhead, Scotland, have their meals together; and whether he is prepared to introduce this reform into English convict prisons?

Mr. DAVIES: The "star" class convicts in England have their dinner in association when they have reached the special stage. I will inquire further as to what exactly are the Scottish rules in this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — "WORKERS' WEEKLY" (PROSECUTION).

Sir F. HALL: 6.
asked the Home Secretary whether any action has been taken or will be taken against those responsible for the issue of the open letter addressed by the Communist party in Great Britain to soldiers and sailors containing incitements of a seditious and treasonable character?

The ATTORNEY- GENERAL (Sir Patrick Hastings): I would refer the hon. Member to an answer given to a similar question yesterday.

Mr. HEALY: Will the Government consider dealing with these gentlemen as the late Government dealt with the men who organised the Curragh incident?

Oral Answers to Questions — IRISH PRISONERS.

Mr. DUNNICO: 7.
asked the Home Secretary whether, in view of the universal desire for amnesty for political offenders and its recognition by almost every Government in Europe, he is prepared to consider the release of all Irish political prisoners now confined in the various gaols of this country, whether sentenced in this country or in Northern Ireland?

Mr. DAVIES: I would refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave yesterday to a question on this subject by the hon. Member for Dartford. The Home Secretary has no authority respecting the duration of the imprisonment of persons convicted and sentenced in Northern Irelad who have been transferred to English prisons. That is a matter for the Government of Northern Ireland. Any question relating to prisoners in Scotland should be addressed to the Secretary for Scotland.

Mr. DUNNICO: 8.
asked the Home Secretary of State the number of prisoners belonging to the Government of Northern Ireland now confined in gaols of Great Britain; the names of such prisoners; the nature of their respective offences; the date of their trial; and the period of their sentences?

Mr. DAVIES: This question only appeared on the Notice Paper yesterday. I will communicate with my hon. Friend as soon as the information desired has come to hand.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

ATHERSTONE GRAMMAR SCHOOL (FEES).

Mr. WILLISON: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether any representations have been made to him with regard to the reduction in fees at Atherstone Grammar School to pupils residing in Atherstone and the rest of the Poor Law union; and whether, as the reduction has been made possible by a large endowment left for the special benefit of the township of Atherstone, he will sanction the reduction and so encourage future similar benefactions?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): I under-
stand that the proposal is to restore a differentiation in favour of local Atherstone pupils which was removed by a scheme made under the Endowed Schools Acts. I believe that the principle involved is one of some importance, but I am looking into the facts of the case.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLASSES (GRANT).

Mr. GRAHAM WHITE: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will consider the advisability of fixing a date after which grant will not be payable in respect of elementary school classes in which the numbers exceed 40?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I am extremely anxious that early and rapid progress should be made in the reduction of the size of classes, but I do not think it would be advisable or practicable for me at the present stage to go so far as the hon. Member suggests. I may, however, refer him to the reply which I gave on the 17th July last to my hon. Friend the Member for South East Ham (Mr. Barnes), and also to paragraph (3) of Circular 1334, copies of which I am sending him.

PHYSICAL EDUCATION (MALE INSPECTORS).

Colonel Sir CHARLES YATE: 11.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many male inspectors of physical education are now employed, and how many hours a week are devoted to the physical education of boys in elementary and secondary schools respectively?

Mr. TREVELYAN: There are at present one male staff inspector and two other male inspectors of physical training employed by the Board. Neither the Code nor the Regulations for Secondary Schools prescribe the number of hours in each week that should be devoted to physical exercises. In public elementary schools the time varies, as a rule, from one to one and a half or two hours. In secondary schools one or two periods a week are generally given to physical exercises in addition to any time given to organised games.

Sir C. YATE: Will the right hon Gentleman lay down some law in this respect?

Mr. TREVELYAN: There is no definite time allotted to any subject, and I cannot do it.

SECONDARY SCHOOLS, LONDON.

Mr. ROBERT RICHARDSON: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the London County Council issued instructions to the head teachers of its secondary schools in July limiting the number of admissions of free placers to 40 per cent. of the total enrolments of the previous year; that in at least one school this resulted in the rejection of a large number of applicants who had won junior county scholarships, although the school is 60 under its accommodation; and will he say what steps he proposes to take to ensure that local education authorities do not in this way interpret the minimum as a maximum, to the exclusion of the most deserving pupils?

Mr. TREVELYAN: The London County Council have informed all their secondary schools that they may now accept scholarship holders up to 40 per cent. of admissions. I have no information as to large numbers of applicants being unable to obtain admission, but if the hon. Member brings to my notice any cases of hardship I will communicate with the London County Council.

Mr. RICHARDSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman reply to the last part of the question?

Mr. TREVELYAN: What the County Council have done is to open up a large number of places that did not exist.

Sir C. YATE: Can the right hon. Gentleman say what is the cost to the country.

Mr. TREVELYAN: I cannot say.

UNIVERSITY OF LONDON (HALDANE COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS).

Mr. GILBERT: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether it is the intention of the Government to apply the recommendations of the Haldane Commission to the University of London; and whether he can make any statement on the subject?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I have reviewed the present position, and have consulted with a selection of the most important academic authorities. While there is a strong desire for reform in many quarters, there is also a general feeling that some
of the findings of the Haldane Commission require re-consideration, in view of the long period which has elapsed since it reported. I propose to appoint a Departmental Committee, in order to lay down the basis upon which a Statutory Commission could act, and I am glad to be able to announce that Lord Ernie has consented to be its Chairman. The other members have not yet been appointed, but I hope to announce them shortly.

TEACHERS.

Mr. HANNON: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether he has taken into consideration the existing situation in the teaching profession consequent upon the increasing proportion of women to men teachers; whether he is aware that in public elementary schools in England and Wales 75 per cent. of the teachers are women; that great difficulty is now experienced in maintaining an adequate supply of men teachers, and that there are now 5,461 fewer male teachers in elementary schools than in 1914; and whether, with the object of providing men teachers for the male youth of the country, he is prepared to examine the position, with a view to the encouragement of more men entering the teaching profession?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I am aware that the proportion of women teachers to men teachers has slightly increased since 1914, and that the general position is as stated by the hon. Member; though, according to the information in my possession, the decrease in the number of male teachers in public elementary schools is considerably less than as stated by him. The decrease is mainly in the grade of untercertificated teachers, while in the grade of certificated teachers the decrease is only 560. I may say, however, that in the year ended the 30th June, 1924, there was an increase of 360 in the number of male certificated teachers employed. I am, of course, well aware of the importance of maintaining an adequate supply of male teachers, and I hope that upon this, as upon all other matters connected with the supply and training of teachers, I shall receive some useful guidance from the Departmental Committee.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not a fact that local education authorities are finding great difficulty in getting highly qualified male teachers in their schools?

Mr. TREVELYAN: The hon. Member knows that there have been this year, until recently at any rate, a certain number of trained certificated teachers out of employment. There is no great lack at this moment.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not most important from the point of view of training the character of our young boys that there should be as many highly qualified male teachers as possible in our schools?

Mr. TREVELYAN: I quite agree.

SCHOOL ATTENDANCE.

Mr. HARVEY: 18.
asked the President of the Board of Education how many children between the ages of 14 and 16 years were attending school in the period for which most recent statistics are available; and whether he can give an estimate of the total juvenile population at the same period?

Mr. TREVELYAN: According to the figures taken from the census returns of 1921, the number of boys and girls between the ages of 14 and 16 is 1,446,593. Of these, 298,745 are, according to the latest figures at the disposal of the Board, in full-time attendance at schools falling within the jurisdiction of the Board. As there are a number of private schools of which the Board have no knowledge, it cannot be assumed that this latter figure is complete.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARAPUNI HYDRO-ELECTRIC SCHEME.

Mr. HANNON: 20.
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he can state the amount of the Treasury contribution under the Trade Facilities Act, 1924, towards the interest payable on the New Zealand Government loan for the Arapuni hydro-electric power-scheme; the nature of the machinery set up under the Act and the steps which His Majesty's Government proposes to take to prevent such abuses of the intention of the Act as the placing of contracts or portions of contracts in foreign countries?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. William Graham): I would refer the hon. Member, as regards the first and third parts of the question, to the answer given by my right hon.
Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the hon. Member for Macclesfield on Tuesday last. In answer to the second part, applications for grants will be considered by a Standing Committee on which the Treasury, the Board of Trade and the Colonial Office or the India Office, as the case may he, will be represented. The Committee will make recommendations to the Treasury.

Mr. HANNON: Will the hon. Gentleman exercise the closest supervision over all contracts of this character, and see that they are of such a nature to be of benefit to this country?

Mr. GRAHAM: There cannot be any doubt about that because the Act is quite clear that the loan must be calculated to provide employment in this country.

Mr. HANNON: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that under the provisions of this contract £200,000 is going to a foreign country?

Oral Answers to Questions — INCOME TAX (CIVIL SERVANTS).

Mr. HANNON: 21.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury whether Income Tax is deducted monthly at the source from the salaries of such civil servants as come within the scope of the Income Tax Acts; and whether, in arriving at the amounts so deducted, any allowance is made by way of compensation for the interest which would accrue thereto if the tax were paid half-yearly in the ordinary way?

Mr. GRAHAM: Under the Rules of Schedule E of the Income Tax Acts, Income Tax chargeable by way of departmental assessment anon established civil servants is recoverable by deduction from the official pay, made at such times in each year as the emoluments are payable. In the majority of eases, the salaries of civil servants are payable quarterly and tax is deductible in quarterly instalments; in certain Departments, however, salaries are payable monthly and are, accordingly, subject to monthly deduction of tax. The reply to the second part of the hon. Member s question is in the negative, the provisions for the payment of Income Tax in two instalments having no application to the case of departmental assessments.

Oral Answers to Questions — FRUIT PICKERS.

Duchess of ATHOLL: 22.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether, in view of the shortage of labour in the fruit-picking industry, which he stated on the 21st July had been experienced in certain parts of the country, and in view of the fact that fruit picking is unskilled work, ho will consider whether by better methods of organisation and by co-operation with the Labour Exchanges it would be possible to remedy this shortage of labour by employing some of the workers who are at present unemployed?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. R. Smith): I understand from my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour that the facilities of the Employment Exchanges for recruiting labour are just as fully at the disposal of farmers as of other employers, and if fruit growers will give sufficient notice of their requirements to the Exchanges, every effort will be made to place them in touch with suitable workers.

Oral Answers to Questions — IRAQ.

MINERAL OIL.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether any exploration for mineral oils has taken place in Iraq since the armistice with Turkey; whether any wells have been drilled; whether any seepages have been found; what has been the result of the explorations; and what are the prospects of finding and winning oil in the territories of Iraq, including the province of Mosul?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Thomas): I am afraid that I cannot give the hon. and gallant Member all the information that he desires. Pending an administrative settlement, action was taken by His Majesty's Government to discourage exploration for mineral oil in Iraq, and has, I believe, been effective; but a small amount of oil was won and used exclusively for military purposes. The only operations of any importance of which I am aware are those carried out by the Anglo-Persian Oil Company in the transferred territories, a narrow strip of country on the Perso-Iraq
border which was formerly part of Persia and is covered by the concession granted to Mr. W. K. D'Arcy by the Persian Government. I do not know what prospects there are of finding oil in the territories of Iraq, including Mosul; but the principal oil companies of the world, whose opinion is probably more valuable than mine, seem to think that the prospects are good.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is my right hon. Friend aware that certain prominent critics of our policy in Iraq have offered to drink all the oil ever found in that country? Will the right hon. Gentleman take steps to have that promise implemented?

Mr. THOMAS: I am satisfied that if a number of people whom I know would guarantee to drink the oil found in that country, I would be delighted.

SAIYID TALIB PASHA (DEPORTATION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies if he can now state the reason why Saiyid Talib Pasha, Minister of the Interior in the Iraq Government, was arrested by the British authorities and deported; whether any charge has ever been preferred against him; whether it is intended to give him the opportunity of a trial and, if so, before what tribunal and whether he is now to be permitted to return to Iraq?

Mr. THOMAS: I would refer the hon. and gallant Member to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for Melton on the nth June, to which I have nothing to add.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this is a good example which we are setting to the Arabs of safeguarding popular liberties by deporting a man without any trial and keeping him out of his own country?

Mr. THOMAS: The hon. Member cannot put that construction on the answer which I have given. I know very little about the circumstances of this matter.

ANGLO-IRAQ TREATY.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 39.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Treaty between His Majesty and His
Majesty the King of Iraq is to be brought before the House in the form of a Bill, as in the case of the Treaties of Versailles, Trianon, St. Germain and Neuilly; and, if not, what is the reason?
I should have added the Treaty with Russia to this question.

Mr. THOMAS: I have been asked to reply to this question. The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. It was necessary to invest His Majesty with certain special powers by means of legislation in order to carry out the Treaties which the hon. and gallant Member cites. In the case of the Anglo-Iraq Treaty no such necessity exists, and legislation is accordingly not required. As I stated in this House on the 29th July, the Government regard the debate upon the Middle Eastern Services Vote as being sufficient in itself to warrant their advising His Majesty to ratify the Treaty.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman take that into consideration in coming to a settlement with Russia?

Mr. THOMAS: I made the position perfectly clear, and told the House an that Vote that we would treat it as giving us the necessary authority to ratify the Treaty. My hon. and gallant Friend was so satisfied, having the liberty of speech, that he did not challenge the Vote.

Mr. MILLS: Can my right hon. Friend say what was the length of time taken in Parliamentary discussion before the signature of the Treaty of Lausanne?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

SUB-POSTMASTERS (DUTIES).

Mr. LINFIELD: 25.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that a deputation from the Salaried Sub-Postmasters' Association was received by his Department on 8th August, 1923, to discuss the questions of title and manipulative duties which have been imposed on this class of officers; that a detailed scheme was submitted; that on three occasions a reply has been promised; and that, there is considerable indignation at the failure of his Department to reply to these matters; and whether he is now in a posi-
tion to forward a reasoned reply to the general secretary of the association concerned?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Hartshorn): I hope to send a reply to this association next week.

LEAFIELD WIRELESS STATION (JAMMING).

Captain BOURNE: 26.
asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that jamming by the Leafield wireless station is causing great inconvenience to the users of receiving sets in Oxfordshire, and that, in spite of the installation of an earth-wire, this nuisance is continuing; and whether he will consider replacing the present dynamo control at this station by valve control?

Mr. HARTSHORN: I understand that considerable improvement in this respect has recently been effected by certain alterations in the circuit arrangements at the Leafield station, rail the possibility of further improvement is being studied by my technical officers. There would be no advantage in this respect in replacing the are transmitting apparatus by valves.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

NORTH SHIELDS.

Mr. RUSSELL: 27.
asked the Minister of Labour whether, in connection with the relief schemes for the coming winter, he has the Union Quay at North Shields under consideration; whether he is aware of the urgency for the reconstruction and extension of this quay in view of the needs of the fishing industry; and whether, having regard to the distress from unemployment in that necessitous area and the importance of such a scheme from the point of view of national development, he will negotiate with the authorities concerned and help them in a special way?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Shaw): I am informed that, while no formal application for assistance has been made by the local authority concerned, the matter has been discussed with representatives of the Departments able to offer assistance towards the cost of this work. It appears, however, that the local authority are unable to take advantage of such assistance as is available
owing to the fact that Private Bill legislation will be necessary to enable the scheme to be carried out. For that reason, also, I am afraid that the proposed works could not be undertaken in any case during the coming winter.

NEWBURY (CECIL. E. WEBB).

Mr. STRANGER: 29.
asked the Minister of Labour why there has been no payment to an unemployed person, Cecil E. Webb, of London Road, Newbury, in respect of unemployment pay since the 13th Juno last, seeing that application was made direct to the Ministry on the 25th July; why no payment or explanation was given in answer to that application; and whether the Ministry admits that any, and, if so, what, sum is due to this man in respect of unemployment pay?

Mr. SHAW: I am having inquiry made. I will communicate the result to the hon. Member, and will see that any payment that may be due is made without delay.

Mr. STRANGER: Can the Minister imagine that it can take a fortnight to make inquiries of this kind? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that this man has been without unemployment pay for the last two months?

Mr. SHAW: As far as I know, the inquiries are conducted with all possible speed, but I know that an inquiry often takes more than a fortnight before the facts can be ascertained.

Mr. STRANGER: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate the fact that he had a letter addressed to him on the 25th July by a man who was unemployed, and cannot he give an answer within a fortnight to that letter?

Mr. SHAW: I have given the hon. Member all the information which I can give. I have told him that the inquiry is being made, and that if any money is due it will be paid without delay. Further I cannot go.

Oral Answers to Questions — DOMESTIC SERVANTS.

Captain BOURNE: 28.
asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been drawn to a leaflet issued by the Ministry, headed "The position of domestic servants employed in hotels, boarding houses, apartment and lodging-
houses, and similar establishments"; whether this pamphlet has been issued in consequence of the decision of Mr. Justice Roche in M. N. Clarke (de Tame) on the 13th January, 1922, which case is unreported; whether he is aware that an inspector has recently been visiting the lodging-house keepers in Oxford, and demanding payment of arrears in respect of unemployment insurance for servants employed by them in their businesses; and whether, in view of the fact that these persons have had great difficulty in ascertaining the true state of the law in regard to the payment of unemployment insurance in respect of their servants, and also of the hardship involved in many cases by the demand for large amounts due for arrears, he will give instructions that no retrospective demands shall be made?

Mr. SHAW: I am aware of the leaflet referred to. It is based upon the decision of Mr. Justice Roche, in the case of Rushmore and Clarke, heard on the 20th December, 1921. I am aware that demands have been made by an inspector for the payment of arrears of unemployment insurance contributions by certain lodging-house keepers in Oxford, but I am not aware of any hardship resulting from these demands; and I am unable to accept the view that any difficulty need have been experienced by lodging-house keepers in Oxford in ascertaining their position. By arrangement with the Vice-Chancellor of the University, a supply of the leaflet referred to was sent in November, 1922, to the Secretary of the Delegacy for Lodgings for distribution among the licensed lodging-house proprietors, and information on the subject could have been obtained at any time from the local Employment Exchange, or from the headquarters of the Ministry.

Oral Answers to Questions — TUBE RAILWAY (NORTH AND SOUTH SHIELDS).

Mr. RUSSELL: 31.
asked the Minister of Transport whether he can give any information with regard to the proposed tube railway between North and South Shields; and whether it is intended to begin the work this winter?

Mr. PARKINSON (for Mr. GOSLING): I have been asked to reply. A scheme for the construction of an electric railway
between North and South Shields was authorised by Parliament in 1902, but the powers for the construction of the line have lapsed. I am not aware whether it is proposed to apply for fresh powers.

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA (MOSLEMS AND GOVERNMENT SERVICE).

Sir C. YATE: 36.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India, if his attention has been called to the note submitted by the Moslem members of the Legislative Assembly and the Council of State to the member in charge of the Home Department of the Government of India, pointing out that only some 5 per cent. of the total Government appointments held by Indians are Moslems, and that such disparity cannot but foster discontent; and if he can state what steps the Government of India are taking to give Moslems a proportionate share in Government employment in the various departments?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Richards): I have just been furnished with a copy of the note to which the hon. and gallant Member refers. The general policy of the Government of India, is, I believe, to secure, wherever it may be possible, that a service is not overweighted with any one class of recruit. But it is obvious that steps to this end can be taken only in services which are -recruited wholly or partly by nomination.

Mr. HEALY: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Nationalists in Northern Ireland are in a worse position in this respect that the Moslems of India?

Oral Answers to Questions — CUBA (MURDER, OF BRITISH SUBJECTS).

Mr. J. HARRIS: 38.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many British subjects have been murdered in Cuba during the last two years; and in how many cases have the murderers been brought to justice?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): Four British subjects have been murdered in Cuba during the last two years. In one case the trial was not proceeded with for lack of evidence. In the other three cases trials were held, but I
cannot say that the proceedings were satisfactory. Further correspondence will be laid before Parliament in regard to these matters.

Mr. HARRIS: I beg t o give notice that, in view of the nature of that reply, I will call attention to this matter on the Motion for the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUGAR BEET INDUSTRY.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: (by Private Notice)
asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, in view of the decision of the Government, as announced on 30th July in connection with homegrown sugar, he will undertake to receive a deputation of Members of Parliament and the trades affected thereby in the early days of the Autumn Session, and before the Bill is introduced?

Mr. GRAHAM: My right hon. Friend will bring the hon. and gallant Member's request to the notice of the Minister of Agriculture, whose Department is the one primarily concerned, and the hon. Member may rest assured that any representations which the sugar refiners desire to make will receive due consideration before the Bill is introduced.

Sir G. COLLINS: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer undertake to see a deputation of the trades affected, more especially the refining industry, before the Bill is introduced?

Mr. GRAHAM: I am not in a position this morning to pledge my right hon. Friend formally to a deputation, but I can assure the hon. Member that this Bill will not be by any means the first to be taken in the Autumn Session, and there will be ample opportunity for considering the Bill.

Sir G. COLLINS: How can the Government conic to a correct decision on this point until they have heard formally the case put by the refining industry in Great Britain?

Mr. GRAHAM: Although I cannot give a definite statement, there cannot be any doubt that the views n ill be heard in the way that my hon. Friend mentioned.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir JOSEPH NALL: Is the proposed deputation in the interests of importers of foreign produce?

Oral Answers to Questions — AUTUMN SESSION (LEGISLATION).

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: May I ask the Leader of the House whether, in the event of the House of Commons reassembling earlier than 28th October to deal with the Irish Bill, the Leader of the House will undertake that the Government will not proceed with any other legislation until 28th October?

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): The answer to that question is in the affirmative, but I may add that the Government would not be opposed to consultations with the other parties in the House as to whether, in the event, of our assembling to deal with the Irish question, we should continue to sit instead of adjourning, and assembling again at a latter date.

Orders of the Day — CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) BILL.

Order read for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [6th August], "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Question again proposed.

ANGLO-SOVIET TREATY.

Sir ROBERT HORNE: I wish to raise a point regarding the procedure of the House. I find from the record of the proceedings of the House for Monday, 4th August, that there are these entries with regard to Russia:
11. Russia (No. 1, 1924),—Copy presented,—of Draft of Proposed General Treaty between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. London, August, 1924 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
There is another entry of the same kind immediately following, "No. 2, 1924." It, therefore, appears from the Records of the House that there were presented upon that date two documents which were to lie on the Table of the House. Obviously those were the draft Treaties then under discussion, upon which negotiations broke down. We asked yesterday to see those drafts, and by some inadvertence a paper which was quoted from was not immediately demanded. But since it appears on the Records of the House that these papers were actually presented, and were to lie on the Table, obviously they ought to be in the possession of the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am sorry that I have not had any notice of that question, and I do not feel capable on the instant of dealing with it. I will look into the matter at once.

Sir R. HORNE: The Government surely is in possession of the document which they affected to present to the House for the purpose of its lying on the Table, and they are in a position to give it. I have inquired for it at the Vote Office, but it is not there.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ponsonby): The position is that the first procedure is to present such a document in
dummy form, and that is an assurance that the full document will be presented. In that interval there was a renewal of negotiations. Therefore, it would be only fair to the House to have the full Treaty in its correct form rather than any misleading document.

Sir R. HORNE: Obviously, the two documents are different documents. Upon the acknowledgment of the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs, this draft Treaty is now a new document that has been altered from, the original, the original having been presented to the House in dummy form according to the usual practice. The original document is nevertheless a document in the possession of the House, and we are entitled to have it before us.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I suggest that this was an Order of the House; it was a Command. When the House commands that a document which is presented to us shall be printed, it does not command that a document which is not in existence should be printed. It gives an Order on a document which is in existence at that moment, and which is supposed to have been presented. As a matter of practice it may not be presented for a few hours, but it is generally supposed to be a document which is in existence at that time, and an Order of the House can be cancelled only by the House. The House having commanded that the document then in existence should be printed, I submit that it is not within the power of anybody to alter that Command, except the House of Commons itself.

Mr. SPEAKER: It is perfectly clear that there has been an Order of the House. I notice the entry "by Command"—by His Majesty's Command. Therefore, I think that unless this Order be rescinded, it is necessary that the document should be presented.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. J. Ramsay MacDonald): I am very sorry that this matter has been sprung upon me, with no notice at all. The position is, that if any technical mistake, has been made, of course, we will rectify it. The intention was that the document should be presented as it was when the notice was put in. There is no doubt about it. There is no use either arguing about it or quarrelling about it. That was the intention. Between the notice being put
in and the fulfilment of the intention, the negotiations were re-opened, and, as a result of the re-opening of the negotiations, certain alterations were made. So far as we are concerned, we do not mind what documents are presented.

Mr. RONALD McNEILL: Then why was the difficulty made about it last night?

The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend knows I cannot answer that question, for reasons which I will explain at a later stage. The intention was there, and had I only received half-an-hour's notice, I should have looked up the position. I am not prepared now, on the spur of the moment, to be any better than Mr. Speaker himself. I give an assurance to the House that if any technical mistake has been made, as far as the laying of papers are concerned, it will be remedied.

Sir R. HORNE: The episode which has just taken place illustrates the condition of ignorance in which the House is in regard to material matters in connection with this very important Treaty. The point which I have just raised is not raised for the first time this morning. A request was made to the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs last night that the draft of the abortive Agreement should be laid upon the Table, and that demand was also made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George). [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Everyone heard it, and the right hon. Gentleman, as I say, also raised the point. It was submitted that as a quotation had been made from a document in the course of a speech, then, according to the procedure of the House, we were entitled to have that document laid upon the Table. You, Mr. Speaker, ruled in connection with the matter that the demand should have been made at the time. But that the House desired to see that very important document, and to see what changes had been made between Monday and Wednesday. It was perfectly obvious and was made plain at the time. It was only this morning that I discovered that upon the records of the House there appeared on 4th August a notice that this document had actually been laid upon the Table, and I raised the question as soon as I had the opportunity of doing so. Accordingly, I do not think it lies with any member of the Govern-
ment to claim that they had not had notice in regard to this point. The desire of the House to see the document was made plain throughout the discussion yesterday, and it remains our desire to-day. As I say, this illustrates the difficulties under which we are at present conducting this Debate. We are dealing with a very important document. If it would suit the Prime Minister better to address the House now, I shall be glad to give way.

The PRIME MINISTER: It is very kind of the right hon. Gentleman. Quite candidly, I am in this fix. I am presiding at this Conference, and I have adjourned it for half-an-hour in order to come here. But, of course, I am in the hands of the House if the House wants any explanation which I can give. But the whole negotiations were conducted with my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, who has, I may say, shown great patience. I understood last night, after the Conference over which I was presiding adjourned at nearly 11 o'clock, that the House had got into a bit of a tangle, and I was asked to come this morning to see if we could not straighten matters out. I am sorry to say I have not been able to give very much time here, but we have been sitting all the morning. I would be very glad, if there be anything the House wants, to see that it gets the necessary material.

Sir R. HORNE: I am afraid the Prime Minister has not entirely apprehended the condition of mind in which the House was yesterday. We all recognise the great demands which are made upon the Prime Minister's time, and the important issues with which he is dealing in other places. Accordingly, as far as I am concerned, I would do anything at all to meet the right hon. Gentleman's convenience, but I think we must let him understand that at any rate those who sit with me on this side of the House regard this matter as being of an importance which requires a great deal more discussion than it has obtained. We desire that the Prime Minister should be fully acquainted with the issues which we are going to raise upon this matter, and that he should be in a position to give us some satisfaction before a Treaty is signed which is obviously in a very imperfect form, as anybody who reads this document can see. I venture to suggest to the Prime
Minister that, looking to the fact that in any case this Treaty has to lie on the Table of the House for 21 Parliamentary days before it can be ratified, you are sacrificing no time at all if you adjourn the signature of this Treaty and its discussion until the beginning of the next Session. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]

Mr. WESTWOOD: Did your party ever do it?

Sir R. HORNE: The Treaty will not become operative in any event. You have to await the expiry of 21 Parliamentary days, after the House assembles, before the Treaty can be ratified. Accordingly you will lose no more than one day in the ratification of the Treaty by adopting the course I suggest. On the other hand, if the Government be determined to take up the attitude of signing this Treaty to-day, they will be faced by a somewhat prolonged discussion, and, it may be, by very awkward and embarrassing consequences as far as concerns the business of the Session. Accordingly, I appeal to the Prime Minister in these circumstances, and having regard to the obviously very imperfectly drawn document which we have before us, to adopt this course. Many of the passages require careful elucidation. We have only had time to glance at it cursorily this morning. It is only now presented to us in typewritten form.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Ten o'clock this morning.

Sir R. HORNE: Some of us have business to do before the House meets. We cannot always have the time available, and I am sure it is acknowledged by the Government themselves that the House has had a very imperfect opportunity of studying this important question. We have only now seen this document, and are asked to sanction its signature by the Government to-day. If the Labour party has stood for anything, it has stood for what they called in the past "open diplomacy" and for giving an opportunity to the House of Commons of deciding important matters such as this Treaty. They are departing from all the principles they have hitherto enunciated if they are going to force this matter to-day and sign a Treaty for the study of which we have had no real opportunity. There are many matters to which I can
direct attention, and I will if desired. In the meantime, I appeal to the Prime Minister, looking at the state of public business, the importance of the document, and the inadequate time which he himself is in a position to give to this matter, to adopt the course I suggest.

The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend, quite properly, on a previous reference to the records of the House, raised the point of precedents. He says the custom has been so and so, and so and so, and the Government, inadvertently or otherwise, departed from custom. I admitted to a very considerable extent the force of his case. Now will he do the same with me? A signature attached to a treaty does not carry with it the sanction of the House of Commons. Nobody knows that better than he does, and nobody has quite properly exercised it more than the party to which he belongs. I have never objected, and I will tell you why. If one is engaged in very intricate negotiations, and then, when they finish, one says: "Very well, good day, nothing has been approved, nothing really has been settled," you will never settle anything at all. One side will go away and begin to amend, the other side will go away and begin to amend, and your negotiations will go on and on and on. What is the change that we propose to introduce here? I want to sign the Treaty to-day. If my signature is attached to this Treaty, I shall not be labouring under the foolish delusion that the House of Commons has sanctioned it—of course not—because the House of Commons has not sanctioned it. It is simply the signature that the Treaty in this form was the agreement that emerged from the negotiations, which under these conditions would then be ended. That is all. Now the Government say: "So much are we aware of that that we pledge ourselves to produce the Treaty before the House of Commons and that the Treaty shall lie on the Table of the House of Commons, not 21 days, but 21 Parliamentary days." Very well, is not that ample? Surely that is enough. Is not that the usual practice, or, in so far as it is not the usual practice, is it not an evidence that the Government are most anxious that not a Clause, not a, provision, not a line of this Treaty should become operative until the House of Commons has sanctioned it?
That is the situation, and I do think the House ought, in all fairness, to allow this to go on. I would warn them that if they set the precedent to-day it is an extraordinary precedent. If I conduct negotiations, not with Soviet Russia, but with anybody else, as Foreign Secretary, and then, when I have finished my work, I must say to the delegation concerned: "I am very sorry, gentlemen, I cannot give my signature to this to prove that I am willing to accept it, provided the subsequent proceedings go through. I am not even allowed to say in the proper constitutional way that I am going to do my best now to carry this through, and this is the document, these are the provisions, to which I agree," nobody knows better than the right hon. Gentlemen opposite that that state of things would be absolutely intolerable. Of course, they may say this is a very special case—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—but when do special cases become the rule? Who is going to decide when special cases are going to become the rule? I put it, in all fairness, to hon. Members on all sides of the House, that if a negotiator, a Foreign Secretary or anybody else, feels that, after he has put his signature to an agreement, not only may the agreement be cancelled or overthrown—because that is all in the day's work, and he has no business to object to that—but if he feels that, after having done his best to make a bargain, a bargain which may not leave him very happy, but a bargain which he honestly believes is good for his country and is the best that he can get, he will not have to face the House of Commons to defend his bargain, but that he will have to face the House of Commons to defend himself for having put his signature to the Treaty, then he will never put his signature to anything at all.
I am putting a very serious argument to all sides of the House, because once this is done, if the House says that, if a signature be put to a document, by putting that signature it is implied that the House sanctions it, according to the theory—

Mr. R. McNEILL: No.

The PRIME MINISTER: Surely; the word that I used I took from the mouth of my right hon. Friend opposite. I do not want any misunderstanding. Did he mean it, or did he not?

Sir R. HORNE: I meant what I said, but not what you say I said.

The PRIME MINISTER: That is a case which I do not think we need trouble to send to an arbitrator, because I am in the recollection of the House. Signing a Treaty or an agreement in the way that we propose to sign this to-day, let me repeat, does not imply that the House of Commons has sanctioned it. It implies that those responsible for the negotiations, in this case the Government, are willing that that agreement should be put before the House of Commons for rejection or acceptance. Certainly, and in order to show that that is so, I would like the right hon. Gentleman opposite to point out one single thing which comes into operation as the result of a signature to this document to-day. If it were merely an accommodation, I would meet you, and be very glad to meet you. But it is not an accommodation; it is the setting of a precedent. Let there be no mistake about that. If this House to-day says these documents must not be signed this House is setting a precedent which must be observed in future.
Take the Treaty of Lausanne. Right hon. Members know that, regarding that Treaty, there were certain provisions with which I, personally, did not agree. But it was an agreement; it was a serious agreement certainly, and nobody did more than I did to carry it out. Supposing there had been another course taken, and no signature had been affixed, what would have been our relations with Turkey in the interval? What would have been the position of this country and of our Dominions? All that happens is this: A signature puts an end to negotiations. The results come before the House of Commons. If the Minister in charge considers that everything must be taken into account, that he must take the whole or leave it, he is absolutely free to come to his own judgment.
I give the House this pledge, that we will not do what was done in the case of the Treaty of Lausanne. We shall not put a Clause into this suggested Treaty of ours that every word of it, every line of it, every provision of it, every annexe of it, must be taken en bloc, or rejected altogether. It can consider it, it can amend it, it can pass it or reject it after all has been done. To the Conservative party in particular, I would appeal that
in a rash moment, or in a heated moment, the last day of the Session, they do not set a precedent in negotiations.

Mr. R. McNEILL: There is no question of precedent.

The PRIME MINISTER: My right hon. Friend cannot settle that. It is not in his power to do it. If he does what, I believe, he intends to do to-day, he does, I believe, set a precedent. Well, creation was not made for the political convenience of the right hon. Gentleman. I regret it, because if it had been, he might have said, after having taken a certain step to-day, that he sets no precedent for similar steps being taken in future, and this being quoted as a reason why they must be taken. Therefore, I leave it there with the House. If the Treaty be signed, the House is not committed; the House will be absolutely free with regard to these Treaties to which, I understand, objection is taken, when they come before the House. The House is absolutely free, irrespective of what is done to-day, to use its judgment and discretion regarding this Treaty.

12 N.

Sir HENRY CRAIK: I am very sorry to take part in a Debate of this sort, but I feel very strongly on this point, and I think the Prime Minister will sympathise with me in putting it forward. The Prime. Minister has told us that nothing whatever commits us or the Empire if the Treaty be signed to-day. Has he considered the terms of the Treaty placed in our hands to-day?—
Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the one hand, and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, of the other hand.…have decided to conclude a treaty with this object—
It goes on:
Those plenipotentiaries"—
What is the meaning of plenipotentiaries if they do not bind the nation?—
having communicated their full powers, found in good and due form, have agreed as follows:—
The right hon. Gentleman's signature is to be put to that, giving full plenipotentiary powers on behalf of Great -Britain and Northern Ireland to bind the nation. What will be the effect in Russia when this Treaty is read? I ask the Prime Minister whether he thinks he is not committing this nation far further
than he has admitted? How does he get rid of the words "plenipotentiaries having communicated their full powers"? Are the Russian delegates not entitled to quote those words, and to say, "After those words, you are not entitled to go back, and if the House of Commons does go back, and refuses to ratify this Treaty, it is breaking faith with us"? That is the danger, and no words of the Prime Minister will remove that danger.

Mr. MOREL: What Government of this country have ever before brought a treaty to the House of Commons for discussion without signing it? I think the Government are being asked to do something that no Government lit fore has ever been asked to do. It is suggested that our Prime Minister should be placed in a position of inferiority as compared with anybody else. He refuses to be placed in that position, and, in so refusing, he has the enthusiastic support of every Member of his party in this House. I beg to be allowed, as a back bencher in this party, to congratulate most heartily my hon. Friend who has negotiated this agreement. Those of us who know him well, know he has spent many anxious days and many sleepless nights in producing an agreement, which may have defects, but which has an immense advantage. It has been a task of immense difficulty that has been laid before the British negotiators, a task of settling disputes which have lasted five years, disputes of every sort and kind—a great complex work needing immense labour, immense trouble and immense patience, and we believe that it has been accomplished in a satisfactory way on the whole. But what an amazing spectacle this Debate has been! Here is a chance, at last, of satisfying British interests, which have been neglected. What did the Conservative Government do for the interests of the bondholders? You did nothing at all, and we are doing something, and we have done more than you ever attempted to do.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member must address me.

Mr. MOREL: I apologise, Mr. Speaker. Here is a chance at last of settling this long quarrel with Russia which, from the point of view of British interests, is going to achieve that which has never been achieved before. We have heard a good deal from hon. Gentlemen opposite about
the bondholders, but I was speaking to the chief British bondholder in the City, and I may say that he is delighted with this, and he is making arrangements with Russia himself. I believe that something like 25 per cent. of the British bondholders have already made satisfactory arrangements with Russia. But this is a much bigger question than that. I cannot understand the attitude of hon. Members opposite, and one would think that they considered that it was a bad thing that the relations between this country and Russia should be placed once more upon a normal basis.
Do they believe that it is a bad thing that these two great nations, touching one another all over the world, should continue to be kept asunder by this chasm which we are trying to fill up? Where is the patriotism and good sense of a policy like that? As for the attack made upon the Under-Secretary and the Treaty by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), I have listened to a great many speeches of his in this House, but a more—I was going to say hypocritical—I will say a more disingenuous or ingenious speech I have never heard. The right hon. Gentleman said that he sympathised with the Russian people, but over and over again the Government of which the right hon. Gentleman was the head subsidised civil wars in Russia, and maintained a cruel and destructive blockade of Russian ports for years and years. How can the right hon. Gentleman talk about sympathy with the Russian people whom he destroyed by tens of thousands? What a revolting attitude it is to come to this House under those circumstances and pretend to be sympathetic with the Russian people. Is it not absurd to pretend at this time of day that the present Russian Government, with all the faults it may have, does not represent the people of Russia? When Lenin first came into power he promised the Russian people bread and peace within 12 months, but he gave them neither. The Soviet regime has had to withstand attacks from outside by some of the most powerful nations in the world. It has had to withstand civil war fomented by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw!"] If that is doubted I will quote the exact words. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Car-
narvon Boroughs said on 17th November, 1919, in this House:
We cannot undertake the responsibility of financing civil war in Russia indefinitely.… There is no country that has spent more in supporting the anti-Bolshevik element in Russia than this country has, and there is no country approaches this in the sacrifices that have been made—not one. France, Japan, America—Britain has contributed more than all those powers put together."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th November, 1919; col. 721, Vol. 121.]
The Soviet regime has had to withstand that, as well as pestilence and famine, and it, has had to withstand such a series of calamities that no Government of modern times has had to withstand, and yet that regime has endured, and what is the use of attempting to suggest that its roots are not in the hearts of the Russian people. I would like to endorse the appeal of the Prime Minister, and I would like to go even further and say that, while we agree with what the Prime Minister has said as being absolutely satisfactory to-day, we hope that before this House rises we shall get a clear, definite, and emphatic declaration that this Treaty is going to be signed to-day. I say that as one who has protested against secret diplomacy for the last 15 or 20 years. There is nothing of secret diplomacy about this Treaty at all. What do we mean by secret diplomacy? What have we always meant by it on these benches? That no Government shall commit this country to Treaties with foreign Powers without this country and this House having the right to pronounce upon them. That is exactly the reform which the Prime Minister has already introduced. Therefore, I hope we shall get that assurance, and I am perfectly certain that every one of us on these benches—and many of us have spoken on this subject from Lands End to John o'Groats, and we know the feeling of the country—is perfectly prepared, if necessary, to go down on this issue, and then I am sure we shall come back to this House with double our present numbers.

Sir R. HORNE: I am in a position of some embarrassment in addressing the House again, and I can only do so by leave of the House. I gave way to the Prime Minister, because I thought it would suit his convenience better, but I now understand that he cannot make it possible to be present. I should like in
my initial sentences to direct attention to what the Prime Minister is urging when he denies that we were dealing with any special case in connection with this Treaty. But, indeed, if we are not in a special case, we are at least in very exceptional circumstances. The Prime Minister himself and the party which he leads recognise, and, indeed, have laid down rules to fit the case, that they are a minority Government; and, therefore, they do not attach the same force to the conventions of Parliament which other Governments do. For example, the Prime Minister, in his opening speech as Prime Minister in this House, announced that he did not intend to be moved from his position by any vote which really was not a vote of "no confidence" or was, not one which he considered went to the very essence of his Government. That was a new rule which he made for a minority Government.
There are considerations attaching to the signature of Treaties which are just as important in connection with a minority Government. What has been the practice which has been usually followed? The Government of the day, having in most cases a majority whose confidence they could command, was accustomed to sign Treaties in the confident belief that the House of Commons would confirm what they were doing, and there has grown up in the world a steady and confident belief that the signature of British Ministers entrusted by the British people with negotiations would be confirmed by the Assembly of the House of Commons. That has been the old convention, but, perfectly obviously, it no longer obtains in the case of a minority Government which cannot confidently say that it will have the support of the House of Commons to the signature it gives.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. J. H. Thomas): In the absence of the Prime Minister, I feel I am bound to draw the attention of the Tight hon. Gentleman to what would be the effect of the proposition which he has now laid down on the negotiations for European peace.

Sir R. HORNE: I am not only appreciating that fact in connection with matters dealing with the European peace, but I am certain that it equally applies to the arrangements which are being made. The House will recollect that the Prime Minister has been careful throughout all these negotiations to make plain from day to day what has been going on, and there have been persistent debates indicating the position of the various groups in the House. What are you faced with to-day? You are faced with the fact, indicated by speeches made in connection with this Treaty, that the majority of the House is against you.

HON. MEMBERS: "Yes!" and "No!"

Mr. SPEAKER: There really is no need for any heat. This surely is a matter for reason and argument.

Sir R. HORNE: I venture to say that, unless you have complete confidence that your signature to this Treaty is going to be confirmed by the House of Commons, you are embarking upon a very risky course. The people of Russia, without doubt, will take the signature of the British Prime Minister to this Treaty, if he appends it, as indicating the support of the British people to this Treaty, and nothing will ever make them believe, if it be overturned by a vote of the House of Commons later on, that they have not in some way or other been tricked by the British people. The Prime Minister will acknowledge, I am sure, that it has neon the almost inveterate custom of the popular assembly of the British people to support the signature of Ministers to treaties, and he gave an illustration which completely confirms my argument. He said, because an agreement had been arrived at at Lausanne, and because British Ministers had given their adherence to the agreement, he, in spite of the fact that he disagreed with large portions of it, nevertheless passed it through the House of Commons, because ho thought the agreement should be adhered to. Now he is asking—

The PRIME MINISTER: My point was that that blocked my way, and made it impossible to change any word without destroying the whole Treaty, and my pledge is that that will not happen in this case.

Sir R. HORNE: It is done with regard to the most important part of this Treaty, because it provides that a series of articles in Chapter 3 constitutes a single and indivisible unit. If you start to amend any portion of that part of the Treaty, the immediate result is that the whole of that chapter falls. Accordingly, the Prime Minister is not on very firm ground in the interjection which he has made. In fact, what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs said yesterday is irrefrangibly true. If you sign this Treaty now, and if we decide in future to depart from it when it comes to be put before the House and is the subject of a vote, you will not only not be creating peace with Russia but you will be creating a feeling of irritation which may lead to the impossibility of amicable relations with them. [An HON. MEMBER: "You do not mind that very much."] I do mind it very much, and I would venture to remind the Prime Minister of what the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs not so long ago said in answer to a question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir S. Hoare):
Will the Government undertake to enter into no treaty until this House has had an opportunity of discussing it?
The Under-Secretary replied:
Certainly, Sir. This House will have a full opportunity of discussing the findings of the Conference.''—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 24th July, 1924; col. 1518, Vol. 176.]
Discussion means nothing if, in spite of what we say you are going to sign the Treaty. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] There is no advantage in discussion unless the views of the House of Commons are going to have effect, and, accordingly, I would, on these grounds alone, seriously suggest to the Prime Minister that even now he would be well advised to postpone the whole of this matter until the beginning of the next Session, especially as he agrees that it involves no delay at all in the beginning of the operation of the provisions of the Treaty. I was speaking of some other points in connection with this matter. How is it possible for us to consider a document of this character in the short period of time which has been afforded us? For example, it involves the annulment of a large number of Treaties which none of us have had an opportunity of looking at. We know nothing of the terms of these
Treaties, but we are being asked to sanction the signature of the Prime Minister to this Treaty to-day, even although it involves the abrogation of a very large number of Agreements and Treaties of which we have no cognisance.
It goes further, and it makes a whole series of arrangements with regard to the fishing industry in this country in relation to their rights in certain waters. I do not know whether there are other Members of this House who feel more competent than I do to judge as to the terms of these fishing arrangements. But one thing is certain. It is impossible to give adequate consideration to the rights of our fishing people in the short time which the Prime Minister has put at our disposal. I would ask the House, in answer to an interjection made from the other side, to believe that I am not speaking upon this matter in any spirit of hostility. My record in connection with our relations with Russia stands already before the House of Commons, and as early as the year 1921, when I was President of the Board of Trade, I entered into a long series of negotiations with Krassin for the purpose of arriving at certain results, and I think we did arrive at very important results on that occasion.
I always held the view, which I hold to-day, that, in spite of all the loathing and horror that one has for the methods which the Soviet Government of Russia took in order to construct its new system, nevertheless, you were not going to bring any advantage to the world by permanently seeking to ostracise a people; and I held the view, which I hold to-day, that the best way to create a change in that country, if you disbelieve in their methods and in their principles of government—the best way to create the changes that you desire to see would be to enter into the, amicable relations which trade gives with her people. After all, trade is a great binder as between nations, and it seemed to me that the world would gain in benefit if we, at least, started to resume some sort of relations with that great country. That on the ethical side. On the material side I took the view that it was a disadvantage to the world to leave out of action a country which was so great a producer of the world's food. If you restricted that production, the result would be that food
would be dear; and the cheaper you could make food for Europe, the better would it be for your people.
In the second place, I thought also, on the line of material advantage, as I think to-day, that Russia was a consumer of the kind of products which we made, and, accordingly, it was of importance to revive that market if we were to do anything to re-establish our own prosperity as a trading country. It is possible to exaggerate what would flow from this last consideration. Many very hectic speeches have been made which would seem to suggest that the millennium would arise as soon as you could begin to trade with Russia again. Of course, everyone knows that that is all nonsense. Even when Russia was trading peaceably before the War, and when she had a much larger population than she has to-day, your trade was not very large in volume, and it is ludicrous to suggest that the mere resumption of trading relations with Russia is going to bring about any very great difference in our unemployment figures. But, when you have so much depression and unemployment as we have, every little helps, and, accordingly, anything that can be done to revive that market is of advantage to our people.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will forgive me for interrupting him, as he interrupted me nine times last night—I have counted them in the OFFICIAL REPORT. Is he aware that, before the War, there was a tremendous amount of trade with Russia in German hands, and that the figures to which he is now referring do not give a true picture of the potentialities of the Russian market?

Sir R. HORNE: I am quite well aware that a great amount of our trade with Russia went through Germany, but, even assessing it at as high a figure as you like, it does not make such a difference in the vast volume of our trade as would justify one-half of the speeches that have been made as to what would be the result of resuming relations. Having explained my own attitude as being one of friendliness towards resuming relations with Russia, I look at this proposed Treaty and I ask: Does it do anything at all to help this movement? I am forced to the conclusion that the answer must
unequivocally be in the negative. I do not really know whether this is the final Treaty or not. It is headed:
Draft of proposed General Treaty between Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Union or Soviet Socialist Republics.
But in the time that I have been able to give to it, I find that there are omitted from it three important, things of which the Under-Secretary spoke yesterday. There is, for example, the complete omission of the Most-Favoured Nation Clause in our favour. There is nothing at all, so far as I can find, which deals with that important point. [HON. MEMBERS: "It is in the White Paper!"] Really, is it fair to ask us to discuss a Treaty in these circumstances, when we have handed to us—[Interruption.]—

Mr. MAXTON: Then why do you make a speech on the subject?

Sir R. HORNE: There is no reason why I should not make a speech, provided that I make the right speech. What I desire to put before the Prime Minister is that he guaranteed us an opportunity of discussing this Treaty, and it really does not offer an opportunity for discussion when we get the papers connected with it handed to us in the middle of the Debate.

The PRIME MINISTER: I agree.

Sir R. HORNE: I would venture again to appeal to the Prime Minister to take the course I have suggested. It may be that this new document contains the omitted matters to which I was going to refer, such as the arrangement with regard to export credits, and other matters, which are entirely omitted from the document which was handed to us this morning. But let us suppose that we have here, in the Third Chapter of the proposed Treaty, the provisions which the Government intends to make.

Major BARNETT: May I interrupt my right hon. Friend to ask if the Front Bench will kindly tell us which is the later of these documents' They are entirely different.

Mr. PONSONBY: The Commercial Treaty, I think, was laid in printed form before 11 o'clock, and, as I was very anxious that the House, after yesterday's Debate, should have the main Treaty at
the earliest possible moment, I kept the typists at the Foreign Office up all night in order that they might produce this Treaty at 9 o'clock this morning, which was done. The printed version of it, which is, of course, identical, will be here very shortly.

Sir R. HORNE: Let us consider whether, in this Treaty before us, there is any advance upon the previous arrangements which had been made or were in process of negotiation by earlier Governments. I turn to the Third Chapter of the Treaty, and I find there laid down the proposed arrangements which are now to apply in dealing with the question of the bondholders and with the property owners to whom compensation is to be paid. The Prime Minister, in welcoming the Russian delegation, laid down three principles, or, rather, he set forth three objects which the Conference was intended to achieve. The first of these was to get peace with Russia; the second was to settle all the rights and obligations as between the two nations; and the third was to get into a position of fruitful trade. Those were the three objects which the Prime Minister laid before the Conference. With regard to the first and the third, they are objects of general desire which no one would question, and they will be attained, no doubt, in the process of time, if the second object can first be accomplished. But what has this proposed Treaty done to settle the rights and obligations of the parties? It has done nothing whatsoever.
If one looks at Chapter III one sees that everything in connection with these matters is postponed to some later day, to be dealt with by some other Committee and to be endorsed by a Government upon terms that are never disclosed. If you take, first of all, the situation of the bondholders, what this document provides is that the Government of the Union agrees to meet claims other than certain holdings; but that is to be done, not by this Treaty, not by this document, but after negotiation between the parties: and if, after negotiation, 50 per cent. of the bondholders agree to some terms which are undisclosed, His Majesty's Government will then make an agreement the terms of which are entirely undisclosed and the conditions of which are entirely unknown. There is not the
slightest indication of the terms on which any agreement is to be arrived at with the bondholders. I should like, in passing, to ask why it is that holdings which were acquired by purchase after the 16th March, 1921, are to be excluded from any consideration and from any benefit? I suppose the date that is taken is the date of the trade agreement. I should imagine that the result of the trade agreement would be to make people all the more certain that by purchasing Russian bonds from people who are willing to sell they would be getting better security than it had been previously regarded. But why are these people who have spent their money in the purchase of bonds held by others to have no benefit while those who sold them should have obtained their money? I should like from the Prime Minister some real explanation as to what is the discrimination between one form of property and another.

The PRIME MINISTER: Cannot the explanations be postponed until we are discussing the Treaty?

Sir R. HORNE: If the right hon. Gentleman would agree to postpone the signature we should be perfectly willing to meet his point, but I am afraid, since we are here to discuss this matter, the issues which are raised by this Treaty must be dealt with before we part from them.
I pass to the next matter, which is the question of the compensation to be given to people who have suffered damage. It is provided that a Commission of six people, three from this country and three from Russia, are to decide with regard to the claims that are made, and if they disagree they may present separate reports. A lump sum, it is said, is to be paid. There is no indication of what the lump sum should be. There is no indication of what is to happen when the two sets of Commissioners present separate reports or how any result at all is going to be arrived at in these circumstances, and accordingly again with regard to this matter everything is postponed to some future day and to some future agreement. In the matter of the property owners we are again to have a Commission which is to deal with the assessment of the damage to property. There is no arrangement for any arbitra-
tion. An indication is given that the Commissioners may disagree, but nothing is said as to what is to happen when they disagree or what action the Government is to take. I put it to the House as to whether this document makes any advance whatsoever upon previous negotiations or agreements. It involves, no doubt, that the Russians give a formal recognition to their obligation to meet the claims of bondholders, of dispossessed property owners and of people who suffered damage through their action, but if the Under-Secretary were to read carefully even the Trade Agreement which we made in 1921, he would find that recognition is not absent. That Trade Agreement provided, even at that early stage of the negotiations, for the recognition by the Russian Government of all claims for goods sold and services rendered, but it went on to say, in the next paragraph, that these were not to be regarded as taking priority of the rights of bondholders and other debts, and accordingly the whole gamut of Russian obligations was already recognised in the Trade Agreement. There is nothing in this document at all which gives you any advance upon the recognition which Russia then gave of her obligations in these matters, and certainly nothing is done by a single phrase or line in the whole of this statement which arrives at a conclusion in regard to any particular claim or by which you can judge what your rights are.
Under these circumstances those of us who are anxious to see some advance made in trading arrangements with Russia can only feel the greatest disappointment at the result of these months of labour. It was said by the Under-Secretary last night that at least, whatever other results this Treaty will have, it will allay ill-feeing as between us and Russia. For the reasons I have already stated, as it seems to me, so far from doing anything in that regard, it will only come as a profound disappointment and disillusionment to the Russian people, if this Treaty is signed and they afterwards discover that nothing practical emerges from it. They will certainly say they have been betrayed. With regard to the possibilities of trade I do not see any paragraph in this document which is going to help trade with Russia, and if
anyone can point to one I shall be glad to hear it. I am considerably interested in this matter. I happen to be a member of one of the companies which has been a pioneer in resuming trade relations with Russia since the War, and I am doing everything in my power to help the increase of that trade. I find it much more easy to buy things from Russia than to sell anything to Russia, but nevertheless I have a certain definite interest in increasing by every means in my power the trade that goes on between Russia and this country, but I cannot find a single help in any line of this document. It is a complete illusion to put before the country that you are doing something by it to start better relations or to increase trade with Russia. There is no provision whatever in any page of it which seems to me to give a single chance of increasing the trade we are at present doing with that country.
One is not really surprised to find that this document is of that character. Up till Monday, after three and a half months of negotiation, no conclusion had been arrived at. There was apparent on Monday, when the Conference broke up, a complete irreconcilability of ideas as between the representatives of this country and of Russia. Was it to be imagined that when that was the state of affairs, after three and a half months' of negotiation, anything real or material was going to be built up in the course of 24 hours? We learn to-day what the source of the new influence was. The "Daily Herald" is claiming that but for its intervention the Government would never have done what it has done. It describes how, by its proclamation that the Anglo-Russian Agreement must go on, they had frightened the Government and induced certain trade union Members to act, with the result that we have now before us this extraordinary document. Does anyone believe, in these circumstances, that you are going to find a real substantial provision, which is going to enable trade to develop between Russia and this country or to make the relations between the countries better? The whole thing is fantastic. The only conclusion we can come to is that it is an attempt to save the faces of a large number of people who have been putting forward the view that if only something could be done with Russia great advantages were
to be obtained by Britain. They made it one of the chief points of their election platform that they were going to get an agreement with Russia, which previous Governments had never been able to achieve. They have got no agreement with Russia which previous Governments have not already got. This is not even an agreement to agree in the future. It is only an agreement to postpone to the future all subjects of difficulty. Everything about which they have been fighting for three and a half months is postponed to some future occasion when it has to be considered by some different people, and there is no indication whatsoever that there will be more chance of these others arriving at results than there was when the case was in the hands of the Under-Secretary for Foreign Affairs.
There is one very significant part of this document, which awakens memories in the breasts of all of us who had to do with these negotiations in the past. A guarantee is to be given by the Government, under certain circumstances, for a loan. But what are the circumstances? All the other things which are dealt with by these various Commissions and Committees have first to be settled, and then the question of the guarantee is to be considered, but no consent is to be given on the part of Russia to any arrangements with regard to any of these other things until the guarantee of the loan has been given, that is to say, until the guarantee of the loan to Russia no obligations will be taken with regard to any other single item. It is an undertaking to acknowledge certain claims only in the event of a loan being guaranteed.
There is no laudable interpretation that can be given to this very hurriedly patched-up document achieved at the last hour after three and a half months of negotiations, and after a complete break seemed to have occurred. It is an attempt upon the part of the Labour Ministry to put before the country something which will represent at least some portion of the promises they made to the electorate in the course of the last election. When the document is read, and when its provisions are analysed, one can only come to this very definite conclusion, that here there is no agreement which is of any advantage to anybody, but that the whole thing in its essence, in its nature, and in its construction is a makeshift, a sham, and a pretence.

The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Mr. Clynes): I am going to address only a few observations to the House, but I think it is clear that in what has been the main issue in this Debate, namely, the order of procedure, the statement of the Prime Minister has carried conviction, being submitted in the form of a very reasonable plea indeed. All that I would say about the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne) is this. The main burden of his argument is that the agreement is wholly valueless and unsubstantial. That line of argument seems to take away all the points of his speech, so far as there were any, as to their being an objection to the Prime Minister signing it. The Prime Minister is asking for this Government—minority Government, as it is, neither more nor less—the freedom and right, in relation to treaties that all other Governments have exercised. The right hon. Gentleman believes that when later on the other aspects of this Treaty, the real substance of this Treaty, the sanction of this Treaty, when those questions come before this House of Commons, the House of Commons will be against the Government. We are quite prepared to await that moment. We are willing to abide by the decision of the House of Commons and the decision of the country when those points have arisen. But as to procedure, we are certain of the constitutional right of this Government to act as all other Governments have done. Why, the truth is that innumerable treaties have been signed by hon. Gentlemen represented on the Liberal Benches and by the Opposition on the other side without any documents either typed or printed. We are perfectly entitled to proceed to complete the initial stage of this honest endeavour to establish and restore better relations between Russia and ourselves. Last night the Government assented to the Debate being adjourned until to-day to hear a statement from the Prime Minister in the hope and belief that at an early stage of this afternoon's proceedings we could proceed to the discussion of other subjects on the Motion for Adjournment. I, therefore, suggest that the House now should allow us to secure the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill in order that it may go to another place and in order that we may proceed with the discussion of other subjects.

Mr. JOWITT: As many Members in different parts of the House have arrogated the right to say what we think here, I feel that one Member from these benches should be allowed to speak his own mind. I find myself in agreement with the Leader of the House in his criticisms of the right bon. Gentleman the Member for Hillhead (Sir R. Horne). The two speeches which he made were entirely contradictory. I agree with one of them, but not the other. It is unfortunately a fact that this Treaty really means singularly little. It is an elementary principle among lawyers that an agreement to make an agreement is ludicrous. When one looks at this agree man, one sees that it is nothing substantially more than an agreement to make an agreement. It may be an expression of good will. I make no apology for saying that I have, at any rate, in the past attached, and do at the present time attach, the very greatest importance to the resumption of trade relations with Russia. I am quite certain we shall never get rid of the present state of unemployment unless and until we start credit trade with Russia. If I can contribute one iota to that end, I will. I am perfectly certain the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has shown the greatest patience and tact in dealing with these gentlemen, but, notwithstanding that patience and tact, he is unable to come to anything like an agreement at all. It is an expression of good will and nothing else. You first of all start with the fishing convention, and there you find an important Clause relating to the superintendence of fisheries and the functions which shall be exercised as may hereafter be agreed. I hope that they will come to an agreement. I am sorry that they have not been able to do so yet. When we come to the really important part of this document, we find Clause after Clause dealt with in this way: "The parties shall meet together and discuss, and see if they can agree." Take the question of the bondholders. What do you find there? You do not find any agreement, you find that there shall be "negotiation between the parties concerned." I hope the negotiation will result in something. Take the claims with regard to the Government of the Union against our Government, and vice versa. There, again these are reserved for discussion
on a later date. Take the claims of nationals; they are to be finally settled as between the contracting parties by the payment of a lump sum. How, and by what machinery, is the lump sum to be ascertained and distributed? You are to have three arbitrators appointed by each side. If they agree, well and good; if they do not agree, they will each present separate Reports. How does that get you any forwarder in this agreement? Then we find solemnly put into the Treaty this Clause:
Article 11—'A second treaty will be entered into.'
Well, it is a pious hope, but supposing the parties cannot agree? What is the good of saying we will eater into a Treaty when you do not know if you will be able to I Finally, I want to ask this question. Article 13, as the right hon. Gentleman pointed out, says that the provisions of this chapter constitute "a single and indivisible unit." I think it is important that we should have an answer in regard to this question. One of the Articles of this chapter is that which provides that all agreement re claims in respect of loss—and they are interventionist claims—shall be reserved. Another Article of the chapter is one which provides that a second Treaty shall be entered into which shall come to a conclusion about all these various matters. Then you get another Article in the chapter dealing with the loan. Frankly I do not think we need to be very concerned about the loan, because an agreement for a loan of an indefinite amount and on indefinite conditions is, of course, no agreement at all. But at the same time, to remove misapprehension, I should like to ask this question of the Under-Secretary. Will he tell us, approximately, in order to avoid misunderstanding, what is the amount of the loan which the Soviet representatives have in their minds? Secondly, I should like to ask this question. I observe that the question of our loan is one of the reserved matters. Is it contemplated that we should be called upon, or might be called upon, to make a loan to them while at the moment of the loan their obligation to us was left outstanding and unsettled? It seems to me that those points ought to be cleared up.
1.0 P.M.
For the rest, I desire, although I regret that this agreement is not much more definite—I do not attach the smallest
blame to the Under-Secretary for that; certainly he did what he could under very difficult circumstances—but for my own part I do want to say quite definitely that I find myself in complete agreement with the Prime Minister. It seems to me that it Will be a thoroughly bad precedent, and contrary to all precedents, if the Prime Minister—after all, he is the Prime Minister of this country—is to come to the House and present, not a treaty which he has signed, but a kind of draft treaty, which may be cut about in red ink and green ink, and so on, going through Committee. That is wrong. I at any rate will support the Government in this matter. I should think the Prime Minister is perfectly entitled to sign the Treaty. It has no effect unless and until we ratify it. I cannot see much objection to ratifying it. I only wish there was something more tangible to catch hold of—and if there is nothing to catch hold of there is nothing to object to. I do ask the Under-Secretary to reply to those two questions which I have raised as to the amount of the loan which the Soviet representatives had in their minds, and the question whether it is contemplated that the loan should be advanced unless and until a settlement has been come to in regard to their indebtedness to us. May I answer the right hon. Gentleman opposite who raised objection to this Treaty being signed because the Russian representatives described themselves as plenipotentiaries. For better or for worse—for my own part I think for better—we have recognised the Russian Government not only as de facto rulers, but as de jure rulers, and that being so, we must recognise these persons as their plenipotentiaries.

Mr. G. BALFOUR: I do not propose to deal with any of the Clauses of the Treaty but for a moment or two to deal with the observations that fell from the Lord Privy Seal. He, in common with others, says that they have a perfect right to sign this document as a preliminary to a Treaty. In my view, this document cannot be dignified with the title of a Treaty. It is merely a general agreement which is committing this country and future Governments to sign a treaty, and I simply rise to utter an emphatic protest against the Government's claim that they have a right to sign this document which,
as has been stated by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite, is not an agreement, and cannot pledge this country because it does nothing. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite intend to say to this House that this great country is entitled to sign any scrap of paper committing this country to sign a treaty, without the country having had an opportunity of knowing to what it is being committed? I, for one, entirely contest that proposition. Let the right hon. Gentleman come down here with a treaty, let him come and say: "We, in our discretion, have signed this Treaty, as we have indeed the right to do, and the Government, having given proper criticism and judgment, we signed this Treaty, and we take our lives in our hands," and nobody in this House will contest their right. But I absolutely contest their right to make any kind of a document up, and by simply printing on it the word "Treaty" to say that they then have the right to exorcise those powers which in the past have been exercised with so much discretion by the Governments of this country before they committed this people in such a vital matter.

Mr. RATHBONE: I wish to say two or three words on this matter. First of all there has been the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Morel), who referred to the fact that the present Government does not believe in secret diplomacy. Well and good, and so far as the Allied Conference is concerned it is quite apparent that the Government will consult this House. We all recognise that as regards the proposed Treaty of Agreement with the Russian Government His Majesty's Ministers have had great difficulty in coming to any kind of conclusion, and it has only been come to at the very end of the Session. We do not blame them for that. We can understand their difficulties. It appears to us on these benches that you cannot have it both ways. If you are going to disbelieve in secret diplomacy, and if you say that the House of Commons should be consulted largely in the issues of a Treaty that it is proposed to sign, then surely you ought to give the House of Commons time to consider and reflect and decide whether they should. I am not saying for one moment that the Prime Minister is wrong in his contention. Of course he is absolutely right, as my hon.
and learned Friend the Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. Jowitt) has just said. Is it not a case of having spoken too soon or too late? Is it not a case where the Treaty, if it had been signed—if it be a Treaty, but my hon. Friend says it is not—that the Government and the Prime Minister need only tell us that these are the provisions, and that however much we may protest in this House by speeches it is quite impossible to seek to oppoe it. Then surely the Russian Government and the world at large will consider that this has been adopted in the House of Commons and has its tacit consent.
Three months hence the Treaty is to come to the House of Commons. Then we shall have to decide, when we shall know the Treaty in extenso, and it may be that we shall think that we ought to reject it. That is a most dangerous position for this House to be placed in. Although I am very new to the House of Commons I think I am right in saying that no such Treaty or agreement, whatever it may be called, has ever been offered to this House in such a form as this, because it provides nothing definite. It simply provides that such and such is to happen if an agreement is arrived at afterwards. What seems to me to be a great danger in regard to this Treaty is that when it comes for ratification this House will be in the position of having to agree to something with which, apparently, from the speeches delivered last night and to-day the House of Commons does not agree. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes"] The House will be in the unfortunate position of either having to reject the Treaty or to agree to it although, apparently, the majority of the House does not agree to it.
It is a most dangerous thing and a most unfortunate thing that after the Treaty has been discussed in this House and then signed, the Russian people, who do not understand our language or our ways, and who do not understand the House of Commons as a free chamber of debate, because they have never had one, will see that we talk about tearing up the Treaty. That would make it clear to the Russian Government and, what is almost worse, to other parts of the Empire and the world at large, that the Britisher's word is no longer as good as his bond. That is what I am afraid of. This Treaty
is to be signed, more or less, in the dark. The fact that we have had it before us for a few hours' debate will. I fear, result in our hands being tied when the Treaty comes for ratification. Hitherto, Governments have had power to make Treaties and have expected that the House would ratify. I do not want to allude to the fact that the present Government has not a majority in this House; but I do want to raise the point that this Government have drawn up a Treaty which they have brought before us at the last moment—I am not complaining of that, because it was inevitable if the matter was to be dealt with at all in this part of the Session—we have discussed it, and the speeches have shown that there is not by any means agreement that the Treaty in its present form ought to be signed. Yet the Treaty is going to be signed. Apparently, the Russian Government and the Russian people will understand that the Britisher has given his word, that the Treaty is to be ratified, and that the details are to come up for settlement later.
I do not want to deal with the financial side of the matter but, surely, if we are going to contribute a large sum in the form of a guaranteed loan, there will be a question on that ground alone whether the Treaty will fail, because the loan may not be forthcoming and the House may not agree to it. Apart from that, the proposals in the Treaty are so uncertain that any of them may fail to work, and if they fail to work will not the Russian people, who are not accustomed to our ways, misunderstand the position. Then, for the first time in the history of our country, a treaty brought forward by a British Government will be rejected, and the result will be that the name of Great Britain will be besmirched, and we may never get over it. In that case, shall we feel that never again can the world believe that when Great Britain says she will do a thing it will be done when the time comes for ratification?

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I am not entitled to make another speech, and only desire to put two questions. The Deputy-Leader of the House has asked that we should close the Debate on the Appropriation Bill and proceed with the Adjournment Motion. I assume that on the Adjournment Motion speeches which could not be delivered on this subject, of Russia can be delivered, and that we
do not close the discussion on that subject. I understand that the agreement come to in the House last night was made on two grounds. One was that the Prime Minister should come and make a statement, which he has done, and, secondly, as was stated by you, Mr. Speaker, in your ruling last night, the desirability of having Papers. The Papers have been laid. Therefore, the grounds for the adjournment of the Debate last night have been complied with by the Government, and I would appeal to hon. Members that it would be desirable to close the Debate on the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill at this stage, and that any further discussion on the question of the Russian Treaty should be taken on the Motion for the Adjournment. I support the appeal of the Deputy-Leader of the House in that respect, because it does not preclude speeches being delivered on the subject which we have been debating this morning.

Captain Viscount CURZON: On the Motion for the Adjournment, I understand that the subjects to be discussed are more or less arranged beforehand with you, Mr. Speaker, through the usual channels, and that, therefore, any hon. Member who wished to speak on this question of Russia would only be able to get in on the Motion for the Adjournment if he was lucky enough to catch your eye.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Hitherto, the Debate on the Motion for the Adjournment has been looked upon largely as an opportunity for Back Bench Members to raise points. If the course suggested by the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs to be adopted—I agree that he has suggested it from the very best motives—the result will be that speeches will be made on the subject of Russia, and the Back Bench Members who desire to raise grievances will be completely cut out. In view of the fact that this is one of the few opportunities that the Back Benches have, I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to safeguard our rights in this matter.

Mr. SPEAKER: Unless an agreement be arrived at to take the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill now, the Debate will continue on the Third Reading, so that it cannot make any difference in that respect to hon. Members. It will equally
be in order to discuss Russia on the Motion for the Adjournment as on the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill.

Viscount CURZON: Will that discussion come on first?

Mr. SPEAKER: In my opinion, as this subject has proved such an over-riding question, it would be right for the Chair to give precedence to it on the Motion for the Adjournment, if the House now agree to the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, because the House will only be doing that, in lieu of carrying on the discussion on the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill, which it has a right to do.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I hope I shall not be considered discourteous, but I wish to raise a very strong protest against the course which you, Sir, suggest. It is a fearful thing that Back Bench Members should come here with their minds made up to raise particular points which are as vital to them as this other question, and that time after time they are cut out and their rights are lost. I utter my strong protest against this happening, as it takes from the Back Benches all opportunity of criticising administration in various Departments.

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: In considering what the terms for the Motion for Adjournment should be, to meet the case raised by my hon. Friend, may I suggest that we should have a Motion to adjourn to-morrow at 5 o'clock, similar in its term to the Motion which we passed yesterday, with the insertion of the necessary date.

Captain BERKELEY: If the House propose to sit to-morrow to deal with the Adjournment Motion, would it not be better to continue the Debate on the Appropriation Bill?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Question is "That the Bill be now read the Third time."

Mr. MAXTON: I wish to test the question of the right of Back Benchers in this matter with reference to the Russian Debate. Do I understand that if we pass the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill now and go on to the Adjournment Debate all persons who have previously spoken on the Russian question on the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill
will now be at liberty to repeat those speeches on the Adjournment Debate? Would not those of us who have had no opportunity of taking part in the Debate and are very anxious to do so have a prior claim over those who have already spoken on the Third Reading?

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Before you put the question of the Third Reading am I right in supposing that domestic questions can be raised on the Question, "That the Bill be read a Third time"? Is it not the fact that two occasions are given by the Appropriation Bill for a considerable amount of discussion, the Third Reading generally for the discussion of foreign affairs and the Second Reading for the discussion of domestic affairs? On the present occasion would it be in order to discuss domestic affairs on the question that the Bill be read a Third time?

Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly it is in order on the two occasions.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have a strong feeling in regard to the point raised by the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton). Certain Members have made speeches on the Russian issue. If we proceed to the Adjournment Debate will they be at liberty to speak again on the same issue? That would be taking an unfair advantage of the rules of the House. I ask you if we are going to discuss Russia on the Adjournment? If we are, then fair play requires that in the Debate on Russia, hon. Members who have not had an opportunity of putting their views before the House should be called.

Sir H. CRAIK: if the Third Reading takes place now and the Motion for Adjournment is taken, and it is arranged that the most interesting speeches on the arrangement with the Soviet should have precedence, then there would remain some hours for dealing with domestic matters on the Motion for Adjournment.

Mr. SPEAKER: My sole desire is to meet the general sense of the House. I think that it will meet the case if, supposing the Third Reading be concluded, it be understood that there should not be more than two reasonably short speeches further on the Russian question, and that then we should proceed to other matters. [HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."]

Viscount CURZON: On a point of Order. I do not know whether I shall have a chance to get in a reasonably short speech on Russia on the Adjournment. I want to ask one or two questions, and if I might be allowed to do so—[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed."]

Mr. BUCHANAN: I have a number of questions to ask.

Mr. SPEAKER: I am afraid that if one Member were given an assurance that he would have an opportunity, others would ask for a similar opportunity.

Mr. HARVEY: On the question of the Adjournment, if the line which you have been good enough to suggest be adopted, there will still remain two or three hours for all the questions which in ordinary circumstances would be discussed during two days. I think that the House Will be glad to agree to dispose of this Debate now if we could be assured by the Government that we might have another day to-morrow for the ordinary adjournment discussion, but if we adopt the other course we shall be robbed, not only of the ordinary discussion on the Appropriation Bill, which naturally had to give way to this very important matter, but we shall also lose all the time which is usually taken on the discussion of the Motion for Adjournment. I would suggest that the Leader of the House might respond to this appeal by being willing to give a day for the discussion of the Motion for Adjournment.

Mr. THORNTON: Why not have the two short speeches which have been suggested now, and so clear the track?

Mr. CLYNES: The real reason for seeking the Third Reading of the Appropriation Bill now is that it is desirable that the Bill shall proceed another place, and that steps shall be taken to secure the Royal Assent by commission to it and various other Bills. I am in the hands of the House as to whether it be the desire to sit longer to-day. The only observation that I make now is that the House might prefer to proceed to hear the other speeches on various topics.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Surely the House is bound by its decision taken yesterday? It was pointed out plainly that by Members occupying the House until half-past one the result would be that there would be only two hours for the discussion of
ordinary matters on the Motion for Adjournment. The House, after hearing that, decided to support the Government and made this arrangement whereby only two hours would be available, and, that being so, the House is bound by that arrangement.

Question, "That the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE (SUMMER).

Mr. CLYNES: I beg to move,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn until Tuesday, 28th October, provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with His Majesty's Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during the Adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall met at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time, and any Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions that may stand on the Order Book for the 28th day of October or any subsequent day shall be appointed for the day on which the House shall so meet.
In moving this Adjournment. I wish to make an announcement on business. I wish to draw attention to the fact that the date in the Motion is the date on which it was originally intended that the House should re-assemble—that is, 28th October. It was made clear yesterday that, in the event of a failure of the Parliament of Northern Ireland to appoint a Commissioner, or in the event of agreement not being otherwise reached, the Government would desire to assemble the House not later than 30th September. I only wish in moving the Motion to draw attention to that condition and to emphasise it as far as I can. In the event of it not being necessary to convene the House until; 28th October, it is the intention of the Government to take, on Tuesday, 28th October, the following business:
Motion in regard to the arrangement of Government Business for the remainder of the Session. That has been customary.
Motion for the appointment of additional Judges, and, if time permit, the Administration of Justice Bill.
Wednesday, 29th: Factories Bill, Second Reading.
Thursday, 30th: Building Materials (Charges and Supply) Bill, Second Reading.
Friday, 31st: Minor Orders to be announced when the House meets.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I want to put a question to the Lord Privy Seal as to the intentions of the Government. Of course, conditions may alter, but do they intend to summon Parliament on 30th September?

Mr. CLYNES: Yes; I have said that, in the event of no agreement being reached, and in the event of the Northern Irish Parliament not appointing a Commissioner, it is the intention to summon Parliament on that date.

Mr. EDMUND HARVEY: I beg to move, in line 2, to leave out the words "this day," and to insert instead thereof the word "to-morrow."
It is impossible in the course of the discussion to-day to discuss a number of subjects which Members have a right to discuss. On the other hand if any hon. Member wishes to go away for a holiday there is nothing to prevent his doing so. My Amendment would safeguard the rights of Private Members who wish to raise matters of importance.

Captain BERKELEY: I beg to second the Amendment.
It is quite obvious that the few hours remaining to-day will not suffice for the discussion of all the subjects that hon. Members wish to raise, and, as far as the proposal of the Chair is concerned—that the discussion on the Russian Treaty should be limited to two short speeches—with all deference to the Chair I venture humbly to point out that that cannot meet, or might not meet, the general will of Members of the House, because there is a large number of most important points to be raised on this Treaty. There are points affecting property and interests all over the country. There can hardly be a constituency in the land in which there are not large trading interests whose affairs are not involved in the provisions of the Treaty. It is hardly fair to Members representing industrial constituencies to limit the discussion compulsorily and to cut down the number of speeches to two.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I find myself in considerable agreement with the Mover of the Amendment. On the other hand some of us come here from very long distances and we make our arrangements with some degree of certainty of getting home. One cannot start chopping and changing those arrangements at the last moment. If it were in order I would like to move a further Amendment extending the hour of sitting to-day. That would give the time necessary for further debate.

Mr. RAWLINSON: This was the very subject under discussion yesterday, and I notice from the Division list that the last speaker voted against what is now suggested. It is impossible to reopen a matter which was divided upon yesterday with full understanding, because, amongst others I pointed out very firmly that the arrangements suggested would leave only about two hours for debate on the adjournment motion. My words of wisdom were neglected. The hon. Member's blood must be on his own head. It would be ridiculous to rescind the resolution which we passed yesterday.

Mr. MAXTON: The division yesterday was not on this issue at all, but on the question whether the responsibility for maintaining a House should rest with the Government or with private Members. I am not talking about the phraseology used on the issue that was involved. As the last speaker knows, the issue involved is usually something entirely different from the language which is spoken. When an hon. Member moves to reduce a Vote by £100 he very often means that he wants to increase the Vote by £1,000,000.

Mr. RAWLINSON: Let me read from the OFFICIAL REPORT of yesterday's Debate:
.…The Measures to be taken to-morrow may take two or three hours with the result that the Motion for the Adjournment may not be reached until three or four o'clock in the afternoon. There will remain only about one-and-a-half hours for discussing that Motion, because at five o'clock the Speaker has to leave the Chair without Question put."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th August, 1924; col. 2942, Vol. 176.]
The hon. Member voted for that state of affairs.

Mr. MAXTON: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, representing a most learned constituency, is not going to
suggest that anyone here votes on statements which are made by those who make speeches. That is even worse than his previous suggestion.

Mr. RAWLINSON: The hon. Member can always trust any statement made by me.

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: I sympathise with the Amendment and, if it be pressed to a Division, I shall vote for it. This form of procedure contracts the opportunities of Private Members, and especially of Back Bench Members, to ventilate their grievances. Here is a flagrant case in point. This Motion was not even taken at the beginning of the day and a result is that the Debate on the Adjournment can only last two or three hours interrupted by a Royal Commission. If hon. Members are in earnest in wishing to use this House to good purpose for the ventilation of grievances they will support the Amendment. In the last Parliament, I think, the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) suggested holding Mr. Speaker in the Chair. If he is in earnest let him vote with us and let us carry this Motion, and those who wish to attend to-morrow to discuss matters of importance and interest to themselves and their constituents can do so.

Commander EYRES MONSELL: May I point out that I do not think there is the least chance of this Amendment being carried.

Captain BENN: How do you know?

Commander EYRES MONSELL: Well I do not think there is. If I am right—and I shall be proved to be right—may I point out that hon. Gentlemen opposite, with whom I have every sympathy, are only wasting the time which is available. It would be much better if the mover of the Amendment withdrew it.

Mr. RAFFAN: Despite the speech which has just been made. I appeal to the House to carry the Amendment unanimously. Nobody will be injured; nobody requires to come here to-morrow who feels that his presence is more urgently needed elsewhere, and if the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken and the other party Whips are going to act in this way it can only be taken as meaning that private Members
are going to be deprived of all their opportunities. I voted in the minority yesterday, but those who voted in the majority are entitled to say that circumstances have changed since that vote was taken. When that vote was taken there was still reasonable opportunity for hon. Members to raise such points as they desired on the Adjournment and the important discussion which has since taken place on Russia was not foreseen. I appeal to the House without any Division to allow such Members as may desire to come here to-morrow the opportunity of doing so.

Mr. STEPHEN: As one who voted in the minority on this matter I support the Amendment, and I suggest that the Front Benches ought to agree to allow this Amendment to go through and give Members an opportunity of raising some of the many important questions which have been crowded out owing to the unexpected developments which have taken place. Those developments are due to the mishandling of affairs, especially by the Front Benches, and I think they owe it to

the back-bench Members to give them a chance of stating their grievances. I hope by some consultation, through the usual channels, the Front Benches will agree on this point.

Lieut. - Commander KENWORTHY: Yesterday, with great reluctance and heart searching, I supported the Government Front Bench in the Debate, and I think the least they can do now is to support us in this matter. I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour to use her influence in this matter, and I promise her that I shall not raise any question affecting her Department, nor indeed any other Department. But I think the Back Bench Members have a fair claim for an additional day if they desire it. It hurts nobody, and it is good for a certain number of people in the precincts of this House who would get an extra day's pay.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 157; Noes, 77.

Division No. 196.]
AYES.
[1.45 p.m.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Gardner, J. P.(Hammersmith, North)
Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)


Adamson, W. M.(Staff., Cannock)
George, Rt. Hon. David Lloyd
Mills, J. E.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Gibbins, Joseph
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)


Alexander, Brg.-Gen. Sir W. (Glas, C.)
Gillett, George M.
Moles, Thomas


Allen, R. Wilberforce (Leicester S.)
Gould, Frederick(Somerset, Frome)
Montague, Frederick


Ammon, Charles George
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Morel, E. D.


Attlee, Major Clement R.
Greene, W. P. Crawford
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)


Baker, Walter
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Nixon, H.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
O'Grady, Captain James


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Palmer, E. T.


Barnes, A.
Harbison, Thomas James S.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Barnston, Major Sir Harry
Hastings, Sir Patrick
Perring, William George


Batey, Joseph
Hayes, John Henry
Perry, S. F.


Beamish, Captain T. P. H.
Healy, Cahir
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Hemmerde, E. G.
Philipson, Mabel


Blundell, F. N.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)
Pielou, D. P.


Bondfield, Margaret
Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)
Ponsonby, Arthur


Bowater, Sir T. Vansittart
Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex,Enfld.)
Purcell, A. A.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Raine, W.


Bromfield, William
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Rawlinson, Rt. Hon. John Fredk. Peel


Bullock, Captain M.
Hodges, Frank
Raynes, W. R.


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Hudson, J. H.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)


Church, Major A. G.
Isaacs, G. A.
Richards, R.


Clayton, G. C.
Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford,E.)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Keens, T.
Romeril, H. G.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
King, Captain Henry Douglas
Rose, Frank H.


Cove, W. G.
Lamb, J. Q.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Cowan, Sir Wm. Henry (Islington,N.)
Lansbury, George
Royle, C.


Crittall, V. G.
Law, A.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Leach, W.
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)
Lee, F.
Savery, S. S.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lowth, T.
Scurr, John


Dickson, T.
Lunn, William
Sexton, James


Dodds, S. R.
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)


Dukes, C.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sherwood, George Henry


Edmondson, Major A. J.
McEntee, V. L.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Egan, W. H.
Mackinder, W.
Sinclair, Col.T.(Queen's Univ.,Beifst)


Elliot, Walter E.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Maitland, Sir Arthur D. Steel-
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
March, S.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
Marley, James
Snell, Harry


Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)


Spence, R.
Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Stamford, T. W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Wise, Sir Fredric


Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Wells, S. R.
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Welsh, J. C.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Tout, W. J.
Westwood, J.
Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.


Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P.
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.



Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Whiteley, W.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Viant, S. P.
Wignall, James
Mr. Alien Parkinson and Mr.


Wallhead, Richard C.
Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)
Warne.


Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B.(Kenningtn.)



NOES.


Ackroyd, T. R.
Harris, Percy A.
Raffan, P. W.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Francis Dyke
Haycock, A. W.
Raffety, F. W.


Becker, Harry
Hillary, A. E.
Rea, W. Russell


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Hogbin, Henry Cairns
Robertson, T. A.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford)


Broad, F. A.
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.


Buchanan, G.
Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern)


Chapman, Sir S.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)
Short, Alfred (Wednesday)


Clarke, A.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Cluse, W. S.
Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Kenyon, Barnet
Stephen, Campbell


Comyns-Carr, A. S.
Lessing, E.
Stranger, Innes Harold


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Linfield, F. C.
Sunlight, J.


Darblshire, C. W.
Livingstone, A. M.
Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)


Dawson, Sir Philip
Loverseed, J. F.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Dickie, Captain J. P.
Lumley, L. R.
Thornton, Maxwell R.


Dunn, J. Freeman
Macfadyen, E.
Thurtle, E.


Dunnico, H.
Maden, H.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Ferguson, H.
Mansel, Sir Courtenay
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Finney, V. H.
Maxton, James
Windsor, Walter


Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.
Meyler, Lieut.-Colonel H. M.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Foot, Isaac
Morris, R. H.
Woodwark, Lieut.-Colonel G. G.


Franklin, L. B.
Morse, W. E.
Wright, W.


George, Major B. L. (Pembroke)
Moulton, Major Fletcher



Groves, T.
Murrell, Frank
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Pattinson, S. (Horncastle)
Captain Berkeley and Mr. Edmund


Harris, John (Hackney, North)
Pilkington, R. R.
Harvey.


Question put, and agreed to.

Main Question again proposed.

Mr. J. HARRIS: Should I be in order in moving to amend the Resolution by putting in a later hour?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): No.

Resolved,
That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday, 28th October, provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with His Majesty's Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time, and any Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions that may stand on the Order Book for the 28th day of October or any subsequent day shall be appointed for the day on which the House shall so meet.

Orders of the Day — MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

That they have agreed to,—

Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Parkinson.]

ANGLO-SOVIET TREATY.

Sir JOHN MARRIOTT: I rise in order to put three or four questions to the Secretary of State on a question which is not identical with that which we have been discussing, although it is strictly cognate. The point on which I desire information from the Government is as to the present position in the Balkans and the Near East. I want to make it perfectly clear that with the purely domestic affairs of important States we have neither the right nor the desire to interfere, but domestic affairs in the Balkans have a very awkward way of becoming matters of international concern. We can rawer forget that for just 100 years the Balkans have been the storm centre of European diplomacy. We cannot forget, some of us, at least, cannot forget, that the Great War of 1914 came from the Balkans. In my judgment, Belgrade, far more than Belgium, was the essential cause of that War. I am very deeply interested in affairs in the Near East, not commercially, not financially, but simply
form the point of view of a student of affairs, and I am more particularly interested at the present moment with regard to the Bolshevist activities in the Balkans. Hon. Members who follow at all closely the progress of affairs in the Near East will, of course, be conscious of the fact, the palpable, painful fact, that there is lying about in the Balkans at the present moment a vast amount of very inflammable material, and a match dropped, either carelessly or by felonious intent, might very easily set all Europe once more in a blaze. Therefore, I make no apology to the Government and to the House for asking for some information from the Government on this matter before the House adjourns for a two months' recess.
Look where you will in the States of the Near East, the situation to-day—I say it with a sense of responsibility—is a very precarious one. Look at the situation in Greece, particularly in Greek Macedonia. Look at the situation in the triune kingdom of Jugo-Slavia. Ever since the signature of the armistice there has been a dangerous mood in the new triune kingdom, more particularly in the Croatian part of it. Look at Rumania, more particularly at the Southern Dobruja. Look at Bulgaria. In every one of these States there are ragged edges left by the peace settlement, and there are to-day working certain elements of very dangerous unrest. These matters are probably known to all hon. Members in the House, and I do not need, and I do not propose, to enlarge upon them. I am convinced from what I know that the existing Governments of these States are very sincerely anxious to maintain the peace of the Balkans, and, therefore, as I contend, the peace of Europe. But they have neighbours who do not share their anxiety, who would like to fish in troubled waters, and who have no particular scruples in lending a hand to trouble. I refer, of course, to the great nation, or rather the Government—let me distinguish—which has occupied the attention of the House during the last few days. Those of us who are interested in the Near East have lately had news of very ill-omen. From Yugo-Slavia there has lately reached us news that Mr. Raditch, who is, as hon. Members are aware, I dare say, the leader of the Croatian peasant party, has gone to Moscow, and there given his adherence, which
he is perfectly entitled to do, to the Internationals.
But the danger that arises is this. Croatia, or at any rate, a very powerful party in Croatia, is exceedingly dissatisfied with the position assigned to it by the Peace Treaty, and one even hears it whispered that Croatia is already looking back with something of regret to the days of the Hapsburg rule, when it enjoyed, under the Hapsburgs, a very considerable measure of local autonomy. It is notorious to those, at all events, who were interested in the affairs of the Near East, that at the time of the close of the Peace Treaty Croatia was looking for the establishment of some sort of quasi-federal relations with Serbia. Instead of that, Croatia found itself absorbed in an enlarged kingdom of the, Southern Slays, with whom neither in race nor in creed has it everything, or, indeed, very much, in common. Bosnia has been in a somewhat similar position. There is in Bosnia a very considerable and a very important party of Turkified Moslems who, even to-day, would prefer the rule of Constantinople, or even Angora, to that of Belgrade.
2.0 P.M.
I mention these matters very briefly, simply to show that we cannot afford to regard the mission of Mr. Raditch to Moscow as a mere matter of domestic concern. Then we hear, also—at least, some of us have heard—of the journeyings or activities of M. Alexandrov, who, as Members of the House are aware, is the head of the revolutionary organization in Macedonia, and I want to ask the Secretary of State or some responsible Member of the Government whether he can tell us what M. Alexandrov was doing here in London in May, with whom was he in consultation, and for what purpose? The House well knows what a fertile soil is that of Macedonia for the germination of every species of noxious and revolutionary plot. What I want to know from the Government is, what was M. Alexandrov doing here in London in May, and what was the outcome, if any, of his visit? Was he using this country and this city as the place in which to plot against one or more of the existing States?

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Sir J. MARRIOTT: I do not know whether it is any satisfaction to the hon. Member opposite who moved the Count, in the exercise of his undoubted right, to have wasted some of the private Members' time, but that is the only result of his action. I was asking the Under-Secretary what was the object of Mr. Alexandrov's visit to London in May. Is it the case, as rumoured, that he was in this country to plot against one or other of the Governments in the Balkans with whom His Majesty's Government have friendly relations? I have in mind partiticularly, though not exclusively, the Government of the State of Bulgaria. The House is familiar with recent events in that country, and hon. Members are familiar with the overthrow of the Stambolisky Ministry, followed by the murder of Stambolisky himself, and that was a very severe blow to Soviet influences in Bulgaria, and the Soviet Government have been attempting and seeking by various means to recover the influence which, over 14 months ago, they lost.
I do not make any complaint about that. I make no complaint, with this proviso that the means employed to establish these influences in Bulgaria do not threaten the internal order of Bulgaria or the peace of the Balkans, and the stability and security of the diplomatic edifice in Europe. These are questions to which I want an answer from the Government, and I trust that before the Adjournment takes place the Under-Secretary will be in a position to give to this House and the country some information on the point which I have raised. I ask these questions with the sole desire of averting any lurking danger to European peace, and I hope the Government will be able to give the House a very definite assurance that these matters are under their close observation, and that they are prepared to throw the whole weight of their moral support on the side of those who are labouring to maintain in the Balkans the status quo, and to prevent that too fertile soil from again throwing up, what it has thrown up in the past, the noxious weeds of war.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: Last night we had a discussion upon the Russian Treaty, or rather the draft Treaty, after a statement had been made by the Under-Secretary of State for War, in which he
had not as much time as is customary in order to make a statement of that kind, and if I was unduly severe on him in my remarks I very much regret it. I was simply trying to comment upon the information he gave to the House, but now we have the document I must say that I think it more than justifies some of the criticisms which I directed against it. It is a very serious document, and quite unprecedented. An hon. Member interrupted me and stated that the Treaty of Versailles had never been published before the Prime Minister of the day signed it, but that is not so. The whole draft of the Treaty of Versailles was published some weeks before it was signed. It was published in the newspapers. It was sent out to the Press, and naturally some of the newspapers had not the space to publish the whole of it, but some newspapers published every word of it. Although the draft Treaty was altered in some important particulars afterwards, still it was published, and if it was not debated in Parliament that was not the fault of the Government. If the opposition of the day had demanded any discussion upon the subject, an opportunity would have been conceded to them. Therefore there is nothing in the point that in snaking this demand upon the Government we are taking advantage of the fact that they are in a minority. I am simply putting pressure upon them to do what I did in response to the appeal of the Opposition a hen I had the same responsibility as they have to-day.
Now I come to the question of this Treaty. I want to make it quite clear that I am not opposed to a Treaty with Russia. On the contrary I took weeks to try and negotiate a Treaty with Russia, I do not say on the same lines as this Treaty, but it was partly on the same lines, dealing with debts, claims, and property, and also dealing with what assistance we could give to Russia. All these questions wore debated at great length, and I made every effort within my capacity to establish peace on a permanent footing with Russia. I have never taken the line, that because the theory upon which the Russian organisation and the Russian Government are based wire obnoxious to British opinion, that therefore you ought riot to have any dealings with them. What organisation Russia has, what Government it has, or the principles upon which it governs are
matters entirely for the Russian people themselves. Therefore on this point I take the same view as the Under-Secretary, and I have always taken that view.
The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Morel) attacked me on account of the fact that the Government of which I was the head subsidised civil war. May I say that we were there simply supporting the men who had given us support during the War. We were supporting General Alexieff and the rest of them at a time When Russia was thoroughly defeated, when about half Russia followed one section and half the other. One section made a Treaty with Germany which very much embarrassed the Allies, and the others were still fighting against Germany, and we were simply supporting them, but when it became clear to us that Russia as a whole was deciding in favour of one of those parties, that is that the Soviet Government was the de facto Government of Russia, we withdrew our subsidies, and in the speech referred to by the hon. Gentleman I deprecated any further intervention in the affairs of Russia. I was constantly opposed to such intervention, and I am not claiming any merit on that account, but as Prime. Minister I was responsible, and I accept the responsibility.
I have always been in favour of entering into an agreement with Russia on the ground that the moment you begin to make the internal affairs or even the mis-government of a country a ground for not recognising that Government then diplomatic business comes to an end. There are many other countries where things happen which one cannot acclaim, and this has been the case even within the last few years where force has intervened, but that is not our business. That is the business of the country concerned, and I have never opposed an arrangement or treaty with Russia on that ground. On the contrary, I have been a strong advocate of it, and I did my very best when in a position of responsibility, to carry it through, and my efforts failed very largely because of the Russians themselves putting forward impossible claims, and because they declined to recognise the principles upon which alone civilised government can have relations with other countries. It was not so much a question of recognition as the fact that they
wanted assistance, and we were entitled to say, "We cannot assist you unless the principles of conduct which dominate the relations of one nation with another are accepted by you." If obligations of honour entered into by preceding Governments are repudiated, how can you do business with a Government of that kind? It means, if you enter into negotiations with them and they just change the orientation of their politics—if more moderate men give way to more violent men—the next people would repudiate the very bargain you are entering into to-day. For that reason, we felt that before you entered into a treaty with Russia you should know whether they were prepared to accept the conditions which are an essential part of the fabric of civilisation in every land. That is all that we asked. There is a very great difference between that, and an agreement of this kind.
I do not know whether it is too late to ask the Government to pause. My hon. and learned Friend said that you need not bother about it, because really we have not agreed to anything, or it is a matter of no consequence. It is, because you are giving the impression to the people of Russia that you are doing very big things for them, and you are not by this Agreement. The Prime Minister, in his speech, constantly used the word "Agreement," and my hon. and learned Friend said that there was no difference between an agreement and a treaty. There is a very vital difference. For instance, if the parties agree at a Conference—that happens very often—to refer a certain number of questions to a Commission and then say, "If they all agree, we will then consider favourably what assistance we can give you," that is an agreement. That is what happened at the Inter-Allied Conference. I am now assuming for the moment that a loan is advisable. What has happened in the other case? It is assumed there that, if there be complete agreement upon a large number of questions, there will be a loan of £40,000,000 to Germany. Those questions are put to different Commissions, but you do not sign the Treaty before those Commissions have decided, and before you really know whether it is an agreement at all. Therefore, there is a very vital difference between a treaty and an agreement in a Conference.
If I may suggest it to the Government, what really ought to have been done, and what undoubtedly would have been done but for their own political difficulties, would have been to have agreed with the Russians to refer these questions to Commissions, and then to have said to them, "If there be agreement upon them, we regard favourably your demand for assistance." But there is a great difference between that and entering into a definite Treaty, with the Seal of the Sovereign on it, which means, in spite of the fact that Russia is a Republican Government, something which will convey to them a guarantee that we mean to do something, and that we mean to do it on a very big scale.
Let us see what the Government have done in this Treaty, as they call it. Every point in this Treaty is left unsettled—every one. There is not a single point between this country and Russia which is settled in this Treaty—not one. Propaganda, that is already in the Trade Agreement. What are the points in dispute? The liabilities of Russia to us, first of all, as a nation; secondly, to our nationals, those who have advanced money to Russia; and, in the third place, the liability of Russia in respect of property belonging to our nationals, which has been confiscated or destroyed. Every one of those points is left completely unsettled. What is the next point which is left unsettled? The counterclaim of Russia for damages. I would point out how important that is. The counterclaim of Russia for gold, that is left unsettled. The loan is left unsettled. It is very remarkable the way this loan was promised. In Article 12 there are these words:
The amount, terms, and conditions of the said loan and the purposes to which it shall be applied shall be defined 
later on. Every point in connection with the loan is left unsettled. I ask my hon. Friend: Can he point to one subject of dispute between us and Russia which is settled in this so-called Treaty? What a remarkable document to be called a treaty when there is not a single point settled. It is more serious than that. What are the conditions under which the loan, I will not say is to operate, but is to be recommended to this House? It is all very well to say that this House can
reject it. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool (Mr. Rathbone) that if we say to the Russian people, "We are going to give you this loan,' and we do not give it, then, though we may have very good reasons, there is not a Russian who will not say that it is a breach of faith, and die reputation of Britain and the feeling that the word of an Englishman or the word of a Britisher can always be depended upon will go. I agree with my hon. Friend in that statement. It is very serious. Just let me ask the hon. Gentleman to look at this:—
Upon the signature of the Treaty referred to in Article 11, His Britannic Majesty's Government will recommend Parliament to enable them to guarantee the interest and sinking fund of a loan.
What is Article 11? Article 11 is a treaty which deals with claims which are referred to in Articles 6 and 8. Will the House observe that there is a gap. Article 7 is left out altogether. Will the House look what Article 7 means? Article 7 refers to the whole of the war loans of the British Government—£600,000,000. That is not to be settled before the loan. What is the next? The question was put by one of the hon. Members for Birmingham (Mr. Hannon) and there was no answer given yesterday, although my hon. Friend promised to give an answer. The Russian Government are putting forward a claim for £10,000,000 of gold which was sent over to this country during the War. They are putting forward a claim to the millions of gold that the Germans seized under the Brest Litovsk Treaty, and which was afterwards taken by the Allies. That is a very considerable sum. I do not know whether anybody remembers the amount.

Mr. PERRING: £30,000,000 or £40,000,000.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE.: That is a total of £50,000,000 of gold which they are claiming as against us. You leave outside £600,000,000 of debt. That will not be settled. The claim of the Russians to £60,000,000 of gold from us—that will not he settled. There is a much more serious thing than that. The claims advanced by the Government of the Union, which means the Soviet, on the ground—a very curious reason was given—of intervention. What is that claim? I have it. I have looked it up. It is a claim that was put in at Genoa, and I have no reason to
think that they have changed it. This is a claim that they put in against us for damages by Allied Governments directly or indirectly, and it was for a tiny trifle of 50,000,000,000 gold roubles. There are no particulars with regard to most of it, but they make us responsible for pogroms, which they value at something very high; they claim against us for the occupation of Bessarabia—we never occupied Bessarabia—for loss of revenue, and for something which they call odd Russian property abroad. There is a good deal that is odd about Russia—but there is nothing odder than this particular document.
Will the hon. Gentleman realise for a moment what it means? Before any of these claims are settled, we are to guarantee a loan. All these things will be outstanding. You may have a moderate Government in Russia now—moderate for Russia—but the hon. Gentleman knows, and no one knows better, the struggle that is going on there. It is the sort of struggle that is going on inside the Labour party. [HON. MEMBERS: "And other parties!"] Very likely. Every party has its Right, its Centre and its Left. That is true of every party. [An HON. MEMBER: "How many are there left of your party?"] There will be many more left than will be comfortable for you at the Election, as you have already discovered in the last Election. I do not, however, want to be drawn away by these interruptions; I generally like to address myself to the business before the House.
Suppose that there is a real struggle going on there, as everyone knows there is—a very formidable struggle. Some of the most formidable men there are the men of the extreme Left, and very able men they are. At any moment they may come on top. A quotation has been given from M. Zinovieff, who clearly is for repudiation. Suppose that we have advanced a sum of money to Russia, what have they asked? That question was put last night, and has been put here this morning by my hon. and learned Friend. No answer is forthcoming, but I presume it will be. The claim that they put at Genoa was for a loan of £400,000,000 sterling. At The Hague, I am told, and I have made some inquiries since, they asked for a loan of £300,000,000. They had come down
£100,000,000 in a few months, and there have been a good many lapses since then, bat they say it is no use talking about a small amount, and that is true. It is a gigantic country, and they say that the devastation is great, that their railways have been worn out, and that, in order to do what is necessary to put Russia in anything like working order, there must be an advance on an enormous scale. I think there is something in that. They did not realise that no country could have given a loan of that sort, but those were their ideas then.
Suppose that there is a loan, and a pretty large one. In the case of a small loan, the Exports Credits and Trade Facilities schemes would enable us to Jet them have, say, £10,000,000 or £20,000,000; but they would not look at that, and they do not look at it now. I know why they are not satisfied with these proposals. It is because you cannot advance anything approximating to what they are expecting. There will be a liability for interest at the rate of 5¼ per cent., or, perhaps, ¾ per cent. more because you guarantee instead of advancing direct. Suppose that you then claim payment of that. M. Zinovieff says, "Ah, no, no, no! We have a claim of 50,000,000,000 roubles against you which is not settled, which is outstanding; we have a claim of 40,000,000 or £50,000,000 in respect of actual shining gold in your coffers which belongs to us. You had better refund yourselves out of that." What is there to prevent that being done? It is not a repudiation of the loan—not at all; it is a method of payment for them. They will say to you, "Go there. You have the cash; you have the bars of gold there in your cellars. Why should you come to Russia for our honest roubles, whereas you have them there locked up in your own cellars—our own money?"
Without settling any of these questions, it is proposed that Parliament should be invited to guarantee a loan and to enter into a bargain that would not be debatable if it had been between two business men, however friendly. It is no use saying afterwards, "We have not agreed about our claims; we have not agreed about our counter-claims; we have not agreed about our loans or what is going to happen, but"—as the Under-Secretary said—" at any rate, we have agreed to be brothers." That is no good. This is either a business transaction or it is not.
I am not going to have it said that, because we object to a thoroughly unbusinesslike agreement, a thoroughly grotesque agreement, such an agreement as has never been submitted by a Government on its responsibility to the House of Commons, an agreement which leaves out every ingredient of settlement, every element, every fact, every figure, and postpones the whole thing—I am not going to have it said that, because we do not agree upon such a proposal as that, we are, therefore, not willing to come to terms with the Russian people. That is not our position.
I do hope that the Government will take the course which not merely every other Government has taken, but which they themselves have taken when they came to discuss matters with the German Government. I do hope that, instead of making this a Treaty, they will make it what it really is, or, at least, ought to be—a preliminary agreement to refer all the disputes to Commissions. When those Commissions have reported, they can on their own responsibility say, "We are willing to go a long way towards assisting you." Personally, I must say at once that I am against a loan. I was against it at Genoa. I do not think there is security for it; I do not think this country can spare it under present conditions. It is a gigantic sum, and it is bound to be if it is to be of the slightest use. No one knows how trade is going to develop during the next few months or years, but I, frankly, am very doubtful about the position. We may need all the resources that we have, with all the reductions in taxation—and we are the most heavily taxed country in the world. There is much to do in the way of development in this country and in the way of development in the Empire. Therefore, I hope that the Government will again reconsider their position, and that, instead of allowing it to go forth to Russia that we are signing, with the seal of the Sovereign, some guarantee to them of a big loan under impossible conditions, we shall just tell them that this is a provisional agreement to examine the difficulties.

Mr. PONSONBY: I feel that, out of respect to the House, I ought to answer some of the questions which have been put to me.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. I want to put to you, Sir, that a very honourable obligation was come to. It was understood we were to have two short speeches. We have listened to a very long speech following the previous speech, and now we are to have a third on this matter—all taking away from the time allowed us. Honourable obligations between one country and another are important, but the first thing is to have honourable obligations in this House. I am not going to listen quietly while I see obligations solemnly entered into broken by Members who have had long experience, and ought to know how to keep obligations.

Mr. FERGUSON: The hon. Member had an opportunity of being here to-morrow, and voted against it.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The hon. Member is a stranger to the truth. He ought to tell the truth when he speaks.

Mr. FERGUSON: You never told the truth in your life.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think it is consistent with what has occurred that there should be a short reply from the Minister, and that we should then go on to other questions.

Mr. BUCHANAN: There was a definite obligation. You, Sir, said you would allow a couple of short speeches and then that we might get back to business. Two speeches have been made occupying almost an hour. Now we are having a third speech. I am not objecting to the Minister replying, but it will take at least an hour and a quarter or an hour and a half. I am entitled to raise this protest, and I am going to raise it, and I do not care who says "No," or who says "Aye." I protest against an obligation entered into between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon and others being departed from. It is not a fair thing.

Mr. SPEAKER: As soon as the Minister has replied on the matter, I propose to go on to other subjects.

Mr. PONSONBY: can assure my hon. Friend I will occupy a very few moments. I only want to reply to one or two points. I said yesterday, and I can only repeat, that the negotiations with regard to the loan can only take place—

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: It is the amount they asked.

Mr. PONSONBY: That is varied from time to time.

Mr. JOWITT: Can the hon. Gentleman give us an idea of the smallest amount?

Mr. PONSONBY: No, I cannot. It will be for the Government to judge when they have satisfied their liabilities. An amusing thing about the criticisms which have been levelled at the agreement is that they are absolutely contradictory. The right hon. Gentleman says that it is so insignificant that it is hardly worth talking about.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: rose—[Interruption.]

Mr. FERGUSON: You Scotch Members ought to behave.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister has given way.

Mr. MAXTON: There is another point involved. We on the Rack Benches have been allotted about two hours altogether. An honourable understanding was entered into—and the right hon. Gentleman took part in it—that we should get the rest of the time for the various matters we want to raise. Here is the Russian Debate again.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I want to protest against this method of carrying on business. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon deliberately entered into an agreement which the right lion. Gentleman the Member for Bewdley (Mr. Baldwin) would have carried out. That agreement was that two short speeches were to be made. I never objected to the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Marriott) addressing the House. We listened to a speech from the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Lloyd George) that I thought would be short, and now he is intervening again. It is a most unfair proceeding, and I am not going to stand it.

Mr. SPEAKER: The right hon. Gentleman is not entitled to make another speech. He can only put a question, and if the Minister give way, the matter is out of my hands. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will have regard to the other Members who wish to speak.

Mr. LLOYD GEORGE: I only want to correct one statement. The hon. Gentleman said I said this was an insignificant matter. I never said so. I believe someone said it, but I did not.

Mr. PONSONBY: I certainly understood the right hon. Gentleman to say this was worthless, and at the same time he seemed to think it was a very serious thing. When we have future Debates on the matter I shall be glad to meet all the arguments which are raised. I should like to say now to the right hon. Gentleman that he really seems to have forgotten all the previous negotiations which have taken place. He forgets the postponed settlement of these claims, in the case of the Hague for two years. The difference between the Genoa proposals and this is that this is to be a signed agreement. At Genoa there was a guarantee of a loan too. The sum under Export Credits was to be increased and the period under Trade Facilities extended. Does anybody really maintain that if we came down to this House with such proposals that that would not be another way of guaranteeing a loan? This is the direct way of doing it. At the same time, we have secured for this House every right and have safeguarded everything until there is a satisfactory agreement on the part of the bondholders. Hon. Members may scoff at that, but I can assure them that a large number of bondholders are in close communication with the Soviet delegates. But here we make a satisfactory beginning. We set up the machinery and we give an inducement to the Soviet Government to settle rapidly, because not one penny will be guaranteed to them until there is a settlement on all these points. We shall have other opportunities of discussing this matter, and I only hope I shall have more serious arguments to meet.

GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS.

Sir H. CRAIK: Although our ears are still ringing with the devastatingly destructive speech of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon (Mr. Lloyd George), and the reply—brief rather than effective—of the Under-Secretary, I make no apology for turning to more peaceable subjects by opening up one of those humble and prosaic questions left to be dealt with by private Members. I am sorry to intervene, but I have something
I wish to call attention to. This time I shall call attention to the management of a particular Department of the Government which is never open to review. I refer to one subsidiary office in the Government—I refer to the Stationery Office. I gave notice to the Secretary to the Treasury of my intention to bring forward this subject, and I understood he would be present to answer any questions. He is responsible primarily, although in a very indirect way, for the management of this Department. I am sorry that, having undertaken to be present, he is absent. But none the less in his absence I will refer to the matter. We never have an opportunity of discussing the estimates for this office. We have found in the Committee of Public Accounts many things which require attention, and we find no opportunity of raising questions on them in the House. We ask questions of an apparently responsible Minister, but we find the responsible Minister knows nothing about it. It will be in the recollection of the House that considerable scandal was caused by certain advertisements of an objectionable kind appearing on National Health Insurance forms. My attention was called to this by medical constituents, who declined to sign certain certificates which contained advertisements of quack medicines and of patent foods. I brought the question before the Minister of Health at that time, but the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. N. Chamberlain) disclaimed any knowledge of the matter, and said it would be reconsidered and all the notices would be withdrawn.
I think the House will agree with me that a matter of this kind ought not to be left solely in the management of a permanent official not responsible to the House. According to our Government the direction of our public offices must be in the hands of politically responsible Ministers, and nothing so delicate as the choice of advertisements to go out under the ægis of this Department broadcast ought to be in the hands of any irresponsible permanent official. I come to another matter. I think a very serious injury is being wrought upon scientific operations by the excessive charges and the restrictions placed upon the publication of these documents. The other day, at the instance of the Geographical Society, I
asked a question as to the sale of ordnance maps, which had suddenly become restricted, and I put the question to the nominally responsible Minister, the Minister of Agriculture. He disclaimed any knowledge of it and his only answer was that the matter, having been brought to his attention, would be reconsidered and altered. Is that a proper thing that a permanent official should be able to place a restriction and embargo on a matter of this sort, a very serious undertaking on which enormous expense had been incurred by the Government and of which a great use is made throughout every part of the Kingdom and by the agricultural community, and that when the question is taken up the Minister should say he is quite unaware of it, but that the matter will be now reconsidered? I understand that since I put the question the embargo has been withdrawn.
3.0 P.M.
I want to refer to another side of this matter, and it is here that I would appeal especially to hon. Members who sit opposite, as it is a subject of special importance, that, when you insist upon the maxim as to a presumed knowledge of the law, there should be no restriction placed upon the poorest people being able to get to know what the law is. Is the House aware of the enormous, unconscionable increase in price that has been placed upon the Statutes of recent years? Up, I think, to 1914 these were issued at a fairly limited price. The Public General Acts were issued at a price of 3s. only, enough to make it easy for the poorest to have access to them. In the year 1922 the price was 10s. 6d., that is, more than three times as much. But that is not the worst. The price of the Index to the Statutes increased from the old price of 10s. 6d. to £5, and now stands at about £4. In the year 1921 it was raised to £5, and in the year 1922–23 to about £4. On what grounds is this done? We all know what the cost of printing these Statutes is; it is chiefly the cost of setting. I am glad to see that I have now the ear of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. The cost of printing these Statutes is practically only that of the original setting, and the cost of what are called "off-prints," which may be required for an additional demand, is a negligible quantity. I certainly say, without fear of contradiction, that you have
no right to charge to the ordinary citizen anything more than a price which will recoup you for this small extra charge that you are being put to. To throw back upon him the necessity of meeting all expenses, which you know quite well have to be met if the Statutes are to be printed—and they must be printed—to throw back upon him the cost of doing this, and to ask a poor man to he under heavy expenditure for this sort of thing, is absolutely unjust. Yet years have passed and no alteration has been made. I have endeavoured to bring this forward, but I have never once had a chance of having it discussed. I will take another case, the annual record of Statutory Rules and Orders that was issued at 10s. down to 1915. It rose in 1920 and 1922 to five guineas and six guineas respectively, and it is now over £2. In fact, the whole of these essential volumes necessary for the ordinary knowledge of the law—the Statutes and the Index to the Statutes, the Statutory Rules, and the Index to the Statutory Rules—which up to comparatively recent years cost only £1 3s. 6d., have now risen to £11 12s. I am quite sure the Financial Secretary to the Treasury cannot, if he considers it, defend any such thing.
Lastly, I come to the question of the price of the OFFICIAL REPORT. That question is one of very grave constitutional importance. Of course, we always have the usual commonplace objection that we only want our speeches to be reported. So far as mine are concerned, I do not care if they are not. They are not worth it, but if the proceedings of this House are not duly recorded arid widely known, the constitutional effect will be very grave. We know quite well that the newspapers of late years have ceased universally to give anything like an adequate account—nothing more really, than a travesty of our proceedings. We have a short and exciting incident, which perhaps, as we know, occupies only a minute or two of time. It is reported at half a column in the best newspapers, while an important debate, involving grave issues, is reported summarily, or perhaps omitted altogether, or else only of a recital of the names of those who took part is given. Is that the way in which this nation is to be kept aware of how its business is being transacted? I will go so far, and I think I shall have
the agreement of a good many Members, when I say that the worse our speeches are the more necessary it is that they should be reported, and the more necessary that the nation should know how its business is being carried on. I contend that if proper means were provided, if the OFFICIAL REPORT were distributed as cheaply as possible, it would have a very much wider circulation. Ever since the day when Dr. Johnson reported out of his imagination in the pages of the "Gentleman's Magazine" the proceedings of this House, when, as he said himself, he took care
never to let those scoundrelly Whigs ever have the best of it!"—
ever since that time, there has been a desire, and an insistence, against the rules of Parliament, to have a report of its proceedings. That was insisted on, and the House had to give way. After that, people took very great interest in the Debates of this Assembly. It is an unsound and an unhealthy thing that that should be checked in any way. The worse these proceedings are, the more need they have to be known and watched. I think the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will agree with me when I say that the expenditure would only be a few hundred pounds a year. With regard to the whole sphere of operations of the Stationery Department, it ought not to be in the charge of a permanent official who is not answerable to any political Minister for his conduct.
What is the use of our spending endlessly upon education, keeping up great museums, instituting long scientific inquiries when the effect of them is being lessened by the fact that this obscure permanent official is able to decide and to put a check upon the spread of the information obtained?

Orders of the Day — ROYAL ASSENT.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners.

The House went, and, having returned—

Mr. SPEAKER announced the Royal Assent to:—

1. Appropriation Act, 1924.
2. Pensions (Increase) Act, 1924.
3. Old Age Pensions Act, 1924.
4. London Traffic Act, 1924.
3191
5. Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1924.
6. Local Authorities Loans (Scotland) Act, 1924.
7. Agricultural Wages (Regulation) Act, 1924.
8. National Health Insurance Act, 1924.
9. Arbitration Clauses (Protocol) Act, 1924.
10. Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Act, 1924.
11. Post Office (London) Railway Act, 1924.
12. Ministry of Health Provisional Orders Confirmation (No. 9) Act, 1924.
13. Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2) Act, 1924.
14. Keighley Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1924.
15. St. Helen's Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Order Confirmation Act, 1924.
16. Midlothian (Calder District) Water Order Confirmation Act, 1924.
17. Edinburgh Corporation Water Order Confirmation Act, 1924.
18. Ashton-under-Lyne Corporation Act, 1924.
19. Hastings Corporation Act, 1924.
20. Leeds Corporation Act, 1924.
21. Londonderry and Lough Swilly Railway Act, 1924.
22. Taf Fechan Water Supply Act, 1924.
23. Clyde Valley Electrical Power Act, 1924.
24. Lanarkshire Hydro-Electric Power Act, 1924.
25. Rhymney and Aber Gas Act, 1924.
26. Manchester Corporation Act, 1924.
27. West Cheshire Water Act, 1924.
28. Newcastle-upon-Tyne and Gateshead Corporations (Bridge) Act, 1924.
29. Croydon Corporation Act, 1924.
30. Tynemouth Corporation Act, 1924.
31. Scarisbrick Estate Drainage Act, 1924.

Orders of the Day — ADJOURNMENT.

Question again proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."

Mr. HARCOURT JOHNSTONE: May I ask the Attorney-General, very briefly, if he can take steps to see that more Courts are sitting during the time that the Courts usually rise for the vacation.
The reason I ask that is, that the Prevention of Eviction Act, passed recently, differs considerably from the previous Act. Orders have been granted under the previous Act which would come into effect in the month of August, but which would be quashed, if it were possible, on the application of the persons against whom the Orders are made, if the Courts were sitting, but they are unable to have this done at present owing to the fact that the Courts have risen for vacation, and, therefore, I would be glad if the Attorney-General would arrange that more Courts should sit to deal with this rather grave situation?

The ATTORNEY - GENERAL (Sir Patrick Hastings): I am afraid that it is not possible to make any Regulation providing that more Courts shall sit, but that course will not be necessary because the Lord Chancellor has just planed his signature to a new Rule. I do not think it necessary to read that Rule, but I may explain its effect in this way, that under this Rule, when the Judge is not sitting, by reason of the vacation or otherwise, there is power to adjourn and stay proceedings until the Judge returns. I think that that meets the views put forward by my hon. Friend and will go a long way to remedy the grievance to which he has referred.

Mr. LINFIELD: I rise for the purpose of calling attention to a case in reference to a Motion which I had on the Paper for some time. It is the case of a passive resister who is about to be removed from the Bench of Magistrates on account of views that he holds conscientiously and I am very glad that there is such a large number of Labour Members here. [HON. MEMBERS: "They are not all here."]—no, I wish they were and we should not have had the adjournment the other night—because I am sure of the sympathy of a very large number of those who sit on the Labour Benches as they, too, have suffered to some extent by reason of their conscientious opinions. It does seem strange that one is obliged, after all these years, to raise a question of this kind against a Labour Government when successive Lord Chancellors, Conservative and Liberal, have always held, whether they agreed with the action of the individuals concerned or not, that they acted from
conscientious motives and they have consistently refrained from penalising them in any way. I am glad that a question of this kind will not arouse to-day the heat which it at one time did. Passive resistance has been thought by Members opposite to be a breach of the law and passive resisters themselves claim that it is not. They state this. The law holds that if you do not tender the amount of the rate in question there is a remedy. Your goods can be seized and sold and payment can be enforced in that way.
Briefly the position of the passive resister is: "We cannot conscientiously tender the amount. You have your own remedy. Take your remedy. Seize and sell our goods," and that was done. There is no penalty of any kind attached to it, and it happened very frequently that a man stepped down from the Magistrates' bench and took his place in the dock, the case was heard, and the goods were distrained and no other action was ever taken against him. Successive Lord Chancellors have always recognised that it was a matter of conscience, and have never in any way penalised the gentlemen who so acted. This movement has almost died out now, and it is very much to the credit of the Church of England that it, has died out. I wish to give my testimony quite frankly on that point. What happened was that when the managers of Church of England schools were appointed, almost invariably a Nonconformist was put on. The Church of England clergymen in the main endeavoured to arrange their religious teaching so as not to offend the susceptibilities of Nonconformists. The result was that passive resistance declined, until now quite a small number of people are passive resisters. At one time there were thousands of cases of passive resistance, and on the bench were many hundreds of Magistrates who were passive resisters.
One cannot help regretting that, after 20 years, a Labour Government should begin to penalise men for their conscientious opinion, especially considering that, even in the last Parliament, a gentleman, who had been to prison many times because he was a passive resister, was allowed to sit on the Labour Benches in this House and is still a Magistrate. All parties in the State have had experiences which should make them
hesitate before penalising men because of their opinions. The benches on the opposite side of the House have had their Ulster covenanters, and they have men sitting on those benches who, if they had been dealt with in the way that the Labour Government proposed to deal with Mr. Dent, would have been removed from the positions they occupy. Instead of that these men, who, some people think, were acting in a treasonable way, have been made Privy Councillors and Judges of the Appeal Court. The Labour party has had its conscientious objectors. So have the Liberals. But it remains for the Labour party to penalise men for their conscientious opinion, and the shame of it is that it is a Labour Government, many of whose members are themselves passive resisters. A banquet was held in the precincts of this House not long since in honour of men who had been to prison for conscience sake. Two, if not three members of the Government attended that banquet. They received the following message from the Prime Minister:
Heartiest good wishes. It is the old story, from prison to honour.
The late Dr. Clifford, a man who was greatly honoured by all parties in the State, was a passive resister to the day of his death. I think it was the Government of hon. Members opposite which made him a Companion of Honour. If so, they honoured themselves by doing it. The hon. Member for Gainsborough was a passive resister and was a magistrate. His Majesty's Government made him a Privy Councillor. A very large number of the Labour party have gloried in the fact that, at a time when we were desperately contesting against an enemy who was seeking to invade these shores, they were conscientious objectors. I tell the Labour party with great respect that if they take the action which is proposed, they will find it hang like a millstone round their necks in future. I tell the Prime Minister and the Lord Chancellor that if they take the action proposed—I have here a telegram stating that the Lord Chancellor's intention is to remove Mr. Dent from the Bench this week—such action, in face of their own record and in face of the fact that two or three Members of the Government are conscientious objectors, and that many members of the Labour party are passive resisters, some of them still sitting on
the magisterial bench, will be resented not merely by Members sitting on the Liberal Benches, but just as strongly by all parties in the State. One had hoped that these days of persecution were long since past it is to me a matter of great regret that it should rest with the Labour party to initiate persecution of this kind against a man who at heart is conscientious and who is respected by neighbours and friends on every hand.

Major CHURCH: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the position of the Universities, the financial position more particularly. I was unable on the Education Estimates to raise the question. It is a question of paramount importance at the present time. On the Education Estimates, I was told that it was a matter for the Treasury, because the grant for the Universities is dispensed by the Treasury. This is a matter so closely allied with education that it is an anachronism that the two Votes should not be included in the same Estimate. My attention has been more particularly directed to the financial position of the Universities by the recent action of the University Court of Edinburgh. That action amply illustrates the crisis through which the Universities are passing. A few months ago Edinburgh University Court, faced with a possible deficit of a few thousand pounds, appointed a small committee to consider the financial position. After long deliberation the Committee found that the only possible retrenchment they could suggest was retrenchment on the salaries of their junior staffs.
I mention this matter particularly because the salaries of the professors in the University of Edinburgh and the other universities of Scotland are uniformly higher than the salaries of professors in the English universities. On the other hand, the salaries of the junior teaching staffs and lecturing staffs at the various Scottish universities are comparatively lower than those for their colleagues in the English universities. I saw the principal of the university on the matter, and he stated that the university finances were in a bad way because they were spending a great deal more on new buildings, while the student fees were being reduced because of the decrease in the number of entries. I pointed out to
him that although it is possible that in the next year or perhaps two years there will be a decrease in the number of student entries to all universities, owing to the more liberal attitude taken by the Board of Education with regard to the grants for secondary education, there is every possibility that the entries will be greater after the next two years. That will have an immediate effect upon the finances of the universities from the point of student fees alone.
I am one of those, however, who do not consider that the universities should have raised the fees three years ago because of the financial position then. On that occasion, when the universities were faced with the possibility of a dearth of students, in spite of the fact that fees were comparatively low, they went to the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. A. Chamberlain), who then said the universities would be helped by the State but must, at the same time, help themselves, and that in proportion as the universities helped themselves the State would be prepared to help the universities. The immediate effect was that the Vice-Chancellors of the various universities decided to put up the fees, and it was done in every case except that of the University of Wales, which could not do so because of the terms on which they had accepted the penny rate throughout the Principality. At the time the increase of fees in England and Scotland had no appreciable effect on the number of entries because of the number of students who had come back from the War and were maintained by the Board of Education. The number of students went up for the time being because of the war entries. Now we are passing through a transition period in which the number has decreased, but, as I say, there is every indication that the number will go up by leaps and bounds in the next few years. The accommodation of the universities will not be sufficient, and therefore it would be a suicidal policy on the part of any of the universities to cut down the number of those upon whom they are going to rely for the next few years to carry forward 1lie banner of knowledge.
It is the worst possible policy to start cheese-paring with the salaries of a few junior men in the universities. We are
told by the university authorities it is inevitable. They say the stipends of the professors are fixed and that their security is an accomplished fact; that they have to effect economies where they can and that the only place where they can economise is on the salaries of the lesser paid men. By economising not only on the numbers, but on the salaries of the staffs we are adopting a policy which in these days will drive away from the universities some of the very best brains which should be available for the universities. If they find they can go into the higher branches of the Civil Service or to more attractive positions abroad they are not going to stay in this country where they are not treated altogether well and where there are few possibilities for conducting research of their own because most of them are overworked with routine teaching duties. That may be a good thing for industry for our colonial services, for our medical services and our Civil Service, but after all upon the universities devolves the task of training these people in the future, and although there may be no immediate effect from this policy it is inevitably bound to react on the quality of the people who come forward to do this work.
At the same time buildings are being erected. That is mainly because when people make an endowment of a University they desire to see something tangible. They are not prepared to give money merely for the endowment of learning, leaving it to the universities to apply the money. Normally, the private benefactor wants to see something in the way of bricks and mortar. He wants to see his name perpetuated in the same way as people who endow beds in a hospital. There are very few people in this country—all too few—prepared to give money to the universities without giving themselves an advertisement at the same time.

Mr. BECKER: How do you know?

Major CHURCH: I am simply stating the fact; and if the hon. Member goes into the matter he will find that such is the case. The majority of endowments are given for the establishment of a Chair with a name attached to it, or fox a building with a name attached to it or a university library with a name attached to it. People who give money in this way very often wish in some form or other, to secure that their memories shall be
carried on after they are dead so that they may be recognised as benefactors of learning. I am not decrying that method; it is the time-honoured method, but the time has come when people who endow universities should realise what they are doing. If a man gives £20,000 for the establishment of a Chair he ought to realise that the university which gratefully accepts such a gift has to supply funds for the new staff attached to that chair and has either to turn people out of existing buildings or put up new buildings; if it is a science chair the university has to supply a new laboratory, and nearly every endowment in recent years, particularly to the newer universities, has failed to benefit the existing staff of the university concerned. It has helped in the formation of the nucleus of a new seat of learning, but has not helped the universities in the present financial situation.
We ask the Treasury to realise that they made a gross mistake in the year 1922–23, when the university grant was brought down from £1,500,000 to £1,200,000. That reduction of £300,000 was not part of the recommendation of the Committee on National Economy. They made no recommendation to that effect, but just before that the Treasury had suggested to the University Grants Committee that they might take the non-recurrent grant of £300,000, which had been granted in 1921–2, and that they could easily retrench to that extent, and the actual effect was that the universities suffered to the extent of 20 per cent. of its finances from the State, while the Education Estimates, which that same Committee recommended should be reduced by 20 per cent., were reduced by only 10 per cent. In other words, a great injustice was done to the universities at that time.
Every university in the country at present is looking around and trying to cheesepare, and inevitably finding that the only way in which it can reduce expenditure is by reducing the expenditure on the salaries of junior staffs, who have no security of tenure. They are doing it in that way and by crippling their research services to a large extent, because they are putting more work on the remaining staff, and, furthermore, they are spoiling the universities as homes of research in general. I make this plea, that the Treasury—and if they cannot do it this
year, they can at least do it next year—should raise the University Grant at least to the figure at which it was established in 1921–22, namely, £1,500,000. Let them forget the fact that the £300,000 was a non-recurrent grant. It was essential then, and it is more essential now, when, as I have said, we are faced with an increasing demand for university education in the very near future. It is the duty of the nation to see that the United Kingdom at least does not lag behind other countries, which are even more financially embarrassed than this country. One does not find, for example, that in Germany there is any waning of their enthusiasm for learning and research. In Germany they are devoting more and more money to university education, and I have seen, not only in Germany but in Austria, that their universities are thoroughly well-equipped and well-staffed. In this country we are seemingly prepared to lag behind at a time when we rely upon the universities to turn out those very people who are going to help us to compete with our two most serious rivals in the conduct of the world. I refer particularly to the United States of America and Germany.
We want this money, and we want the Treasury to be generous in this matter. There are a number of ways in which the State added to the burdens of the Universities, such, for example, as by passing the Safeguarding of Industries Act. I am not quarrelling with the principle of that Act now, although I am prepared to do that on another occasion, but that Act put an immediate burden on the Universities. It increased their expenses for materials for research, for scientific inquiry particularly, and practically every scientific instrument that comes into this country, which is pooled by the Universities, adds to the cost of the Universities and further depletes their financial resources. In every way, then, the State has a bounden duty to perform towards the Universities. I may be told—and it is true—that the State have been more and more generous since the War, but the fact remains that we need more assistance at the Universities because of the growing number of students. We must regard University education as a national investment, an investment which returns not only cent. per cent., but, one may say, thousands per cent.
In passing, I should like to say that Scotland at least is very much ahead of this country in the provision of university education and the number of students in its university colleges. There are more universities, in proportion, in Scotland than in this country—[An HON. MEMBER "They need it!"]—and Scotland takes a very large share of the University Grants, hut, in spite of that, I would say that in its Cass IV Estimates there is still a sum of, roughly, £30,000 not allocated to any particular university college, and I would suggest that, because the universities in England at least are paying their staffs considerably better than they are in Scotland, it would be a good thing to hand over that sum unallocated to the Scottish universities, in order to enable them to meet their financial deficiencies. I will go as far as to say that, in regard to Edinburgh University, which is pleading poverty at the present time, and which can only show that it is going to save £700 on the proposed economy, and that coming out of the pockets of all the junior men and not a penny out of the pockets of any of the other men, we should hand over to that university its estimated deficit of £7,000. Let us give it to them, and if they only spend it on maintaining the present salaries, it will be doing a real good service.
I am not one of those who suggest that, because Scotland is getting proportionately more money than this country, they should not get more. I do not mind if they do, provided that the people of this country awake to a sense of their responsibility in the matter. I hope we shall get more and more money granted by the State, and that the State will also make the most powerful representations to local education authorities, county boroughs, and bodies of that kind, that, they should be more generous with their contributions for University education. Some of them have been generous, and made a special rate for University education in this country, but there are very few of them who are doing it, and, as everybody knows, some of the countries in this country, which are always cheese-paring at the expense of education, are those counties which will not look at University education and will give no facilities to the children of their counties to go to the Universities. We want, at any rate, to engender in the minds of the
people of this country some of that Scottish spirit towards education, some of the same enthusiasm for education, and we want to remove from the United Kingdom as a whole the reproach that we are prepared to allow the Universities to go on from year to year in a state of miserable penury, and not to come to their assistance generously in the time of their greatest need.

Captain BENN: May I ask a question as to the course of the Debate? My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Linfield) raised a question, and was the only speaker on that question, as to the treatment of a certain magistrate. Is it not the custom in these adjournment Debates for Ministers, if present—and I see the Attorney-General here—to make some reply to matters as they arise, so that that matter may fall out of the Debate and other subjects be pursued?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Robert Young): It is not within my power to ensure that. If the Attorney-General does not rise, I cannot compel him to do so.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am very sorry I am not in a position to give any answer to the hon. Member who raised this question, and I am bound to say that the fault, if fault there be, is not mine, for this reason. The hon. Member knows that the Minister of whom he is speaking is not a Minister of this House. My hon. Friend who spoke on the last matter affecting myself mentioned that he was going to raise it. That equally applied to the Lord Chancellor. I had an opportunity of communicating with the Lord Chancellor, and was able to give the information, which, otherwise, I was quite unable to give. If I had known this matter was going to be raised, I should have adopted the same course, but I had no such information, and, therefore, I could not adopt that course.

Mr. LINFIELD: I regret not having sent notice to the Attorney-General, but I had already placed a Notice of Motion on the Order Paper, and it has been there for a very considerable time, and I assumed it would be sufficient notice to the Attorney-General that it would be brought up at the first opportunity. I am not blaming the Attorney-General, but I hope, even now, he will be able to give
some reply, because the mind of the Attorney-General must be full of this subject, having so many of his colleagues who have suffered in the same way.

Major HORE-BELISHA: Is the Attorney-General aware that this is a matter of great urgency? This man has been informed that he is to be struck off the bench. The Lord Chancellor has written a series of letters offering him the alternative of sacrificing his principles or leaving the bench. It is a matter, not only affecting liberty of conscience, but the position of this man. Could the Attorney-General, therefore, before 5 o'clock, obtain some information?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I regret I am unable to say more than this, If my hon. Friend wishes me to endeavour to obtain an answer before five o'clock, I will endeavour to obtain that answer, and if I can get it before then, I will give it to the House.

Mr. LINFIELD: I much appreciate the courtesy of the learned Attorney-General.

PRISON SYSTEM.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: called upon, Mr. Harvey.

Sir W. LANE MITCHELL: Could we not have the Treasury answer to the last speech?

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: I called upon Mr. Harvey.

4.0 P.M.

Mr. E. HARVEY: I am not going to follow the very interesting speech of the hon. and gallant Member who spoke last, but would like to say how heartily I concur in his plea for a restoration of the Treasury grant for the aid of the universities to the full amount. I am sure that is a point that has the sympathy of all Members in the House irrespective of party. I want to raise the question of our prison system as it is shown in the extremely interesting Report of the Prison Commissioners that is issued year by year, and hardly ever gets discussed in this House, although it affects the well-being of thousands of our fellow-citizens, and, ultimately, affects the well-being of the whole social structure. It is a silent service, but it ought not to be shut out from the knowledge of the House or the interest of the House. It is 30 years since the last departmental inquiry into
prisons. Some years ago I brought a deputation of Members of all sides of the House to the then Home Secretary, begging him to have another departmental inquiry. He was most resolute in taking the view that the prison system was perfect, and that there was no need for further inquiry. Since then an unofficial inquiry has taken place, presided over by the present Secretary of State for India, and its Report forms a volume which has been read with the deepest interest throughout this country, and in many other countries, and it has, I am glad to say, already produced a most beneficent result. I believe that the present Prison Commissioners and the present secretary of the Commission are among the most ardent and successful of prison reformers, and I think anyone who reads the last two Reports of the Prison Commission will realise that fact. Happily, the Prison Commission is under the guidance of men who have the welfare of the prisoners deeply at heart, and who are doing their utmost, within the limits of the present system, to secure reform. I want to pay my tribute to those gentlemen, and to the great number of officers under their administration who are working in the same direction, in spite of great difficulties. I wish both to record one or two of the points in which the latest Report of the Prison Commission shows the great progress that is being made, and, at the same time, to urge, that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will use his influence to see that those good steps are not the last steps, and that he will encourage and help the Prison Commissioners to go forward more speedily with the good work they have in hand.
Already, in the silent revolution which has been taking place during the last three years, some of the worst features of the old prison system have disappeared. The cruel, horrible silence which was rigidly enforced in other days has gone, although at present the actual statutory rule is still enforced very strictly, and needs modification. It is Rule 114, which says that "an officer shall not speak to a prisoner unnecessarily." It is quite easy to see that the present Prison Commissioners, with their wide outlook, will always interpret that
in the right way, and they do encourage officers to speak words of kindness and encouragement from time to time to the prisoners. But in the past, any such words have been interpreted as unnecessary words, and when a prison officer has spoken words of encouragement, he has been punished. I have no fear of that happening under the present administration, but I do suggest that the rule should be modified to safeguard any danger of its recurrence in the future. Association of prisoners has been encouraged within the last two years, with very satisfactory results. A number of prisoners, the starred class particularly, are allowed some opportunities of association, and I believe that principle could be carried further. I hope it will, because everything that helps to bring out the sense of fellowship in prisoners is something that ultimately contributes to the welfare of the whole community. It will help to make them better citizens. In the same way, the introduction of some experiments on the lines of the American honours system will, I. hope, be carried further.
There are several Members of this House who have the privilege of taking part in the voluntary education system which is now being carried out in many prisons. I wish the Home Secretary could get help from the Treasury to strengthen the efforts that are being made in that direction. There are a great number of volunteers who are taking educational classes in prison, at some inconvenience to themselves, and there are many poor men who can hardly do it unless their railway and travelling expenses are provided. The Government, I think, ought to make greater use of help from professional teachers. It need not involve a large expense on the Treasury, but, especially in the case of juvenile offenders, it would be of the greatest value. I would like to thank the Commissioners for the great reform that they have instituted throughout the prisons in introducing the system of voluntary visits of laymen or clergymen, who, for that purpose, are laymen. They visit the prisoners regularly as friends, and are able to bring the spirit of human fellowship in a way that could not otherwise be brought inside prison walls.
A great deal has been done to promote the self-respect of prisoners by the dis-
carding of the horrible prison garb, and the encouragement of the use of more ordinary clothes. I should like to see greater liberty given also in the matter of the receiving of visitors and letters to the great bulk of prisoners than is now allowed. I know that valuable improvements have been made recently by the Commissioners, but I think they might be still further extended. In a great prison in America the visits made to the prisoners take place in the large central hall of the prison, where a large number of chairs are placed two by two and the prisoner's wife, brother, sons or friends are allowed to converse with the prisoner sitting at a considerable distance from the others, and they are not under the constant supervision of an officer and therefore no one could overhear what went on between the prisoner and his visitor. That makes the position much better than if the visit took place with an officer within a foot or two of the prisoner and his visitors.
Sometimes there are intimate family matters that can never be discussed satisfactorily in the presence of a third person, and it often entails great suffering to the prisoner and his family if those opportunities for human intercourse are not allowed. In the case of people coming from a distance, I think there should he an extension of the time allowed for the visit. Sometimes visitors come a matter of 100 miles to see a prisoner in a prison or a Borstal institution, and they are only allowed 20 minutes, after having made a whole day's journey at enormous expense relatively to the small income they receive.
I hope some further extension may be granted in this direction. I should like to have dealt with other points, but time does not allow. I think our present system must be judged more oy its success in keeping people out of prison, because we do not want a large prison population. The passing of the Criminal Justice Administration Act has been instrumental in keeping a large number of people out of prison, and I want to see that Act carried still further. This Measure allows the payment of fines by instalments, and I think this should be made more effective and the principle extended. A great number of people go to prison because they cannot find bail, and for various reasons which, in
the long run, amount to poverty. I want to see equal justice done to the rich and the poor in that respect. I should like to have given some personal instances of the way in which these cases are dealt with, and I am sure it is a matter which could easily be looked into, and if dealt with it would make a great difference to the lives of some of our unfortunate fellow citizens. Above all, more should be done to extend the probation system, and make it more effective. After all that is, perhaps, the best way of keeping people out of prison. I think there ought to be a probation officer in touch with every Court, and I hope this Government will carry out that object.
In the case of a first offender, and where juveniles are concerned, the probation officer should be a friend able to assist and advise these people in Court, and he should be allowed to speak for the prisoner. Very often when the offender is a young person he is speechless and unable to present his case, although he might be able to bring forward overwhelming evidence to prove his innocence. If the probation officer was able to see a boy offender before he was brought into Court, and was able to get his case from him, then he would be a real friend in Court, and we should do away with a great deal of the sense of injustice that still rankles. I hope we shall have a further extension of the probation system by applying it also to prisoners after sentence, especially to first offenders—something better than the "ticket of leave" granted to convicts—by which, in cases where the Prison Governor thought it desirable, the sentence might be suspended after a short time of imprisonment, and the prisoner placed on probation. I do not want to trespass on the time of the House and I will conclude by commending those considerations to the Under-Secretary.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Rhys Davies): I wish to congratulate the hon. Member upon his persistent interest in this very important subject. I agree with his point of view with regard to the general principles which ought to guide the Prison Commissioners in this matter. In studying some of the Reports issued in connection with prison work it has struck me as being very remarkable that the
prison population of this country is decreasing yearly. In 1903 the receptions on conviction numbered 167,100, but by the year 1923 they had decreased to 47,371, which is a very remarkable decline. Another fact that the House might take into account is that in 1913 the convictions for drunkenness were 51,851, but in 1923 they were only 11,010.

Mr. BUCHANAN: What country was that?

Mr. DAVIES: Those figures relate, I believe, to England and Wales only. In Scotland, I am sorry to say, that crime is a little more prevalent, comparing the prison population with the whole. Whereas the prison population of this country in the past had to be dealt with in the mass the time has now arrived when it can almost be dealt with individually. That is a great step forward. With regard to the problem of the old offender there were 14,500 men and 3,004 women who had been previously convicted came into prison; they had been convicted from one to five times. There were 2,082 men and 3,127 women who had been convicted before 20 times and over. Those are the prisoners who give the Prison Commissioners and the Home Office a great deal of trouble. In the year 1907 there were received into prison 572 persons under 16 years of age. In 1921, only four under that age were received. The best feature of our work—and I think I may claim credit to the present Government for it—is that we have set aside, by arrangement with the Treasury and for the first time in the history of this country, a sum of £22,250 in order to establish a probation system. That probation system, if carried through on the lines which we are proposing, will mean, not necessarily that we shall secure one probation officer for every Court in the land, but that every Court shall be covered.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Does this £22,000 apply to Scotland as well?

Mr. DAVIES: If I remember rightly, all questions in relation to prisons in Scotland should be addressed to the Scottish Office.

Mr. BUCHANAN: The Treasury are making a grant of 222,000 for probation
officers in England, and what I want to know from the hon. Gentleman is whether Scotland will get any share of that money, because it is as important that the work should be carried on there as here?

Mr. DAVIES: I think the allocation is to be settled later on.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Then Scotland will get a share?

Mr. DAVIES: I will inquire into that, but I imagine that will be so. That, after all, is the best piece of work which we are attempting to do. I agree with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. E. Harvey) on probation, and I must confess that I have been a little annoyed to see some cases which, in my view, ought to have been put on probation sent to prison. I disagree entirely with the attitude that persons guilty of minor and petty offences, especially young persons, should be sent to gaol at all on the first or, even, the second conviction. Time, of course, will not allow me to reply to all the points raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I can assure him that we shall scrutinise all the points that he has made. One of the difficult problems in connection with the prison population of this country is the debtor.

Mr. CLARKE: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that some of us have been waiting here for hours?

Mr. DAVIES: I am finishing now; I have only taken three minutes yet. The debtors give the Commissioners a great deal of food for thought. In 1919 there were only 1,830 debtors in prison, whereas in 1923 there were 12,995. I want to conclude on this note. So far as I understand this problem—and it may interest the House to know that I have myself been in prison; I have been there officially and not as a prisoner—the stages of the treatment of the prisoner have been these. Long ago he was treated in a spirit of revenge; then he was punished, and later on he was restrained. The time has arrived, in my view, when the prisoner ought to be dealt with as an individual. We ought to train and reform him and make him, if possible, a better citizen. Bulwer raid that "Society has erected the gallows at the end of the lane instead of fixing guide-posts and directions at the beginning." Our task
is to fix the guide-posts at the beginning of the lane.

PENSIONS (TUBERCULOUS CASES).

Captain ELLIOT: I should not have risen just now, but I gave notice to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions that I intended to raise a few points this afternoon, and I am anxious, if possible, to give him an opportunity of replying. I promise that I shall be as brief as possible. I wish to raise the question of tubercular ex-service men who are at present under the care of the Ministry of Pensions. The tubercular man is in a peculiar position in that he comes to some extent under two Ministries, the Ministry of Health, or the Board of Health in Scotland, and the Ministry of Pensions. The ordinary pensioner is not fully convinced that when he comes under the care of the Ministry of Health he gets the same advantages that his fellows who are under the sole care of the Ministry of Pensions get. Consequently, it is necessary for the Ministry of Pensions to make sure by inspection and in other fashions that they keep in touch with the pensioners who are boarded-out in institutions which are under the management of the Ministry of Health.
There are also other points. We have not had the advantage of a pensions Debate this year, and I cannot go at any length into the subjects on which we receive very numerous communications, but, as I say, the pensioner in those institutions is not fully satisfied that he is receiving the same care and attention that he would receive if he were solely under the Ministry of Pensions. I do not believe it is possible to concentrate the tubercular cases who are under the care of the Ministry in institutions solely under their supervision, because I understand there are some 2,500 tubercular patients in sanatoria at any one time, and it is not possible to concentrate those men in one or two spots in the United Kingdom. The necessity to make it clear that their appeal lies to the Ministry of Pensions is a duty which, I think, not fully realised by the Ministry at the present time. At any rate, I find many tubercular ex-service men who are pensioners do not apply to the Ministry of Pensions as readily as the other pensioners who are directly under the charge of that Ministry.
I put a question some time ago to the Minister of Pensions with regard to the particular grievance that some of them have brought forward, namely, the question of the 100 per cent. pensions on their first dismissal from the sanatorium which is not awarded on the disability of the patient, but solely on the ground that he is a tubercular man who has been in a sanatorium. A pension of 100 per cent. is granted to him for six months after his first dismissal from the sanatorium, but it is not continued at that rate after subsequent admissions and dismissals from the sanatorium. He is then boarded solely on the extent of his disability. I admit that this is a case of a concession on the part of the Ministry of Pensions which leads up indeed to some grave difficulty. It seems odd to the pensioner that on his first dismissal from the sanatorium, when presumably he is more healthy than he would be after subsequent admissions and dismissals, he receives a higher pension, and he naturally suffers under a sense of injustice. I do not know whether it will be possible for the Minister to extend the concession which he has made.
I do not know what the average length of life of the tubercular pensioner is, but I should hope that it is longer than the average length of life of the tubercular civilian patient. I would draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to this fact. The tubercular civilian patient was stated by the medical officer for health for Glasgow to have a duration of life of three years after his first dismissal from the sanatorium. Consequently, these pensioners are few in number, and I would ask whether it would not be possible to deal with them as a special case. After all, it is not merely a case of the tubercular man himself, but he is also a danger to the community. You get the risk of infection to the community. When I brought this matter to the attention of the Ministry of Pensions, they said, quite rightly, that it was impossible to mix up the duties of the Ministry of Pensions, who look after the man insofar as he has been injured by the War, and the duties of the Ministry of Health, who look after him insofar as he is a peril to the community. That makes it all the more necessary that close co-ordination should be kept up between the Ministry of Pensions and the Ministry of Health in this matter, and that the Ministry of Health should not escape a certain
amount of its obligation by having it taken over by the Ministry of Pensions.
There are cases of which I should have liked to give the details, but it is not now possible owing to the time. There is one case of a man with a 40 per cent. disability, and another of a man with 80 per cent. disability, whose two children have both contracted tuberculosis. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to consider what chance there is of such a man finding employment of any kind whatever. A man with a disability of over 50 per cent. from tuberculosis is in the same position as a man with 100 per cent. He suffers not merely the disability of his illness, but also the social disability that other people do not wish to work in the same shop or at the same bench, or in any close proximity to him.
I think there is need for a closer coordination between the Ministry of Pensions and the Ministry of Health in this matter. The problem of the tuberculous man is a grave problem in the community. The necessity for getting him to undergo sanatorium treatment is one of the ways in which we shall be able to continue the reduction in the tuberculosis figures which is such a feature of our present health statistics. In that regard the Ministry of Pensions, which is accorded relatively speaking generous treatment by the Treasury, has a special responsibility in making sure that these men are so treated in every possible way as to give the impression amongst the civil population that the tuberculous man should enter hospital for his own good, and that he has a chance of receiving good treatment in hospital, and possibly of being cured, or at any rate that he has the best possible chance of having the disease arrested and making sure that it is not communicated to other members of his family.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to give his close attention to the problem of the tuberculous ex-service man, and see that in every way his Department gets into closer relationship than is the case at present, with the Ministry of Health in England and the Board of Health in Scotland, so as to make sure that there is a complete dovetailing of the problem, and that the experience which has now been gained for the community by the treatment of tuberculous ex-service men shall be avail-
able subsequently for the treatment of the civilian patient who contracts the disease, and will have to be dealt with long after the last tuberculous ex-service man has either been cured or has passed out of the ken of the Ministry altogether.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Mr. Muir): The hon. and gallant Member has raised a question which, as I think will be admitted in all parts of the House, is one of the most serious and important that we have to consider. It is one of the questions upon which medical science itself is not definitely decided as to methods of treatment or as to the best means to be adopted in dealing with the men concerned, not only from the point of view of treatment., but from the point of view of occupation. The hon. and gallant Member has said that a man with a high disability from tuberculosis is debarred from entering into occupation because of the undesirability of his associating with other workers. That is admitted at once. The difficulty is to know what to do with him. It is necessary, if any assistance is to be given by way of curative treatment, that the man's mind should be free from financial embarrassment, but it is also necessary that he should feel that he is a useful member of the community, and a difficulty arises there.
It is very important to know whether it is best to give a man full maintenance, which will make him independent of any attempt to earn a livelihood—of any attempt to become a useful member of the community—or whether it would be better to give him the ordinary assessable pension on the same terms as for other disabilities, and to try to provide him with useful occupation. The difficulties have been considered by the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Pensions in conjunction with the Ministry of Health, and schemes were proposed for setting up communities entirely for tuberculous ex-service men. The difficulty about that is that most of the men are themselves not desirous of entering such a community. They do not wish to be isolated and regarded as being quite apart from the ordinary community, and everyone can understand that that is perfectly natural.
On the other hand, a community such as that would probably have to be a
subsidised community for a considerable time, and would at the same time have to enter into production of various kinds and enter into competition with purely economic units. The difficulty presented there, again, is that of finding men willing to enter, and, having got them, of enabling them to feel that they are really useful, because, if their productive work cannot be carried on in a competitive sense, then they naturally feel that their production is not on the same level as ordinary production. There are great difficulties about the matter, and it has not been proceeded with to any great extent. One or two attempts have been made, and schemes are still running, but they are not too successful. One, I understand, is working now on economic lines and is paying its own way, but that is the only one so far.
I agree with all that has been said about giving the best attention and about securing close co-operation between the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Pensions and the Ministry of Labour. While it is necessary to keep that always in view, I do not think it can be said that we are neglecting it. A Conference was arranged by the Minister himself a month or two ago with the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour to go into the question of the treatment of tuberculous ex-service men, and it is agreed that, no matter how much we may try as a Ministry to do for the ex-service men, their case is bound up with the general question of tuberculosis. The Ministry of Pensions, however, is responsible for the material well-being of these men in the sense that it pays pensions and allowances and has its inspectors to see that they are attended to properly in the institutions under the Ministry of Health and, in Scotland, the Scottish Board of Health.
In the matter of treatment allowances and in the matter of pensions I think we are dealing very generously with this problem. At the beginning of the Pensions Scheme, all tuberculous men were assessed and treated exactly as were those who were suffering from other disabilities, but later it became necessary to consider them as a class quite apart. We have to remember that there are among ex-service men 37,000 cases of tuberculosis due to, or aggravated by, war service, and that five and three-quarter years
after the end of hostilities there are being admitted to pension 190 cases per month. I think that that shows that there is no disposition on the part of the Ministry of Pensions in any way to put difficulties in the way of these men who have suffered. We are perfectly well aware of all the difficulties, and we quite realise what a terrible scourge it is, but the fact that we are admitting, after five and three-quarter years, 190 cases per month, is, I think, a guarantee and a sign that we are not at all niggardly in the treatment of this type of case.
The annual expenditure of the Ministry of Pensions on tuberculosis cases is between £6,000,000 and £7,000,000, and of that only £300,000 goes for administration and medical services. Most of that £6,000,000 or £7,000,000 goes, as hard cash, to the pensioners themselves. We endeavour to make their position as easy as possible. In the ease of men who get 100 per cent. disability after a course of treatment in a sanatorium, it is true that they get an assessment of 100 per cent., and receive that pension for six months after they come out of the sanatorium. Contrasted with their ordinary assessment it seems to them very strange that, when they come out of a sanatorium in better health that when they went in, they should get the 100 per cent. and then at come time or other revert to their ordinary pension, but it is done for the purpose of keeping their minds free for that six months from any financial embarrassment. Following on the six months, their assessment comes down no lower than 50 per cent. for a period of two years, which gives them a clear two and a half years in which they have no serious financial embarrassment so far as we can prevent it. That is again quite a good thing, and it gets over some of the difficulty. On the question of coordination I can say that we are keeping that in mind. The Conference which was held recently raised certain points which are under consideration at present. Any other points which can be raised and brought to our notice where it is thought benefits can be conferred on this type of case, for which we feel very considerably, we will take up at once.

Mr. WRIGHT: I wish to call attention to a question of considerable importance to the people who live in Blantyre, in Lanarkshire, which is in my Division. I
very much regret the delay that one has had in getting into the Debate to raise the question, and the very short time at my disposal, because the matter is of very vital importance to the people in Blantyre. Very serious allegations have been made against the police authorities of that town at intervals extending over a period of six years. I have here evidence collected by the solicitors whom the miners have employed, consisting of 90 pages of foolscap, and the names of 70 witnesses who are prepared to come forward and testify with regard to the charges brought against the police. The hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Duncan Graham) and I went there in March last to address a very large public meeting of indignation called against the conduct of the police, which was attended by 1,200 to 1,500 people. They subsequently employed a solicitor of standing in Hamilton, and they have collected this evidence. When we returned here my hon. Friend and I interviewed the Secretary for Scotland, demanding an immediate inquiry into the allegations, and two months ago my right hon. Friend promised this inquiry, but it has not yet taken place, so far as my information goes, and there is profound discontent and indignation, not merely in Blantyre but throughout the mining area of Hamilton, because working men are being treated with brutality and because of the shocking condition of affairs such as the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Kelvin Grove (Captain Elliot) would not suffer for a single day so far as his people are concerned. I am bound to express my regret that this court of inquiry has not yet been granted. It is a shocking thing that because a man happens to be a miner and to wear a tweed suit and a cloth cap he should be set upon by the police when talking to his friends, beaten with a baton, taken into a prison cell where he is beaten again in the darkness of the night until he has to seek medical aid to recover from his injuries. I am not saying all these statements are proved. I am only speaking as a representative of the division, and if we cannot get it in this way we will get it in some other way, because we are not going to stand it very much longer. Here is an instance of what I mean—
Harney was standing in a corner of the lane when I went forward and spoke to him. Just at this time two policemen came along.
Gordon was in civvies and Innes was in uniform. Without any provocation what ever Gordon struck me. He had not a baton but he Struck me with his fist. Innes, who had a baton, used his baton on me. I was very much injured and have suffered very severely since then. The police went away and left me lying bleeding on the road.
I desire to quote one other instance. I am very sorry this statement cannot be quoted much more extensively than time permits—
Two policemen came into the cell during the night. They were Anderson and Macdonald. I was lying sleeping at the time. They came in and gave me a shake. One of them had a flashlight which he shone on me. Anderson said, Oh, it is him. Get on your feet.' I had a notion that if I got on my feet I should be put down on my bark again, and I said, Have not I had enough last night?' He said, 'Get up on your feet.' Whenever I got up be knocked me on my back again. Anderson drew his baton and hit me on the back of the head with it. Then they went out into another man's cell.
I could quote another dozen instances of that kind of treatment administered to these men. What we are demanding is that without any further delay a public impartial inquiry, apart from the Lanarkshire police officials, should take place, and on the strength of that inquiry if the charge of blood guiltiness is proved against these men they should meet the punishment they deserve. I warn my right hon. Friend that if this inquiry is not granted without any further delay we will carry this thing over the West of Scotland, and the East of Scotland too. We have always stood for order. We have always stood for the regulation of matters in a civil and peaceful way. I have myself been appealed to time after time. "If Parliament fails, what are you going to do! Will you resort to physical force?" I have said, "Give Parliament a chance," and we are giving Parliament a chance now, and if they do not act, you may depend upon it that civil disorder will spread throughout Lanarkshire and into the other parts of Scotland, and the responsibility for that will rest upon the men who have not taken the opportunity of redressing grievances in a lawful manner. I hope I am not appealing to my right hon. Friend in vain. I hope the very reasonable demand I am making will be granted, that there shall be an impartial inquiry into these allegations. The police themselves are entitled to it. If I were a
policeman I would not submit to charges like this being made against me if I were innocent. In the interests of the police it ought to be made without any further delay.

Mr. CLARKE: It is difficult to bring this matter before the responsible Minister in a limited number of minutes at the end of a long and tiresome day. I want to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to a similar grievance to that mentioned by my hon. Friend. About a year ago a very serious malady broke out in one of our mining districts, causing considerable consternation in and around the district because of its gravity and seriousness as it developed. They found themselves at a loss to understand the origin, the cause of the dire disease which had seized quite a large number of mine workers in that district. They were taken to the Royal Infirmary, where their cases were considered and an analysis was made of the disease. The doctor who examined them unhesitatingly came to the conclusion that it was caused from poison exuded by rats in the mines where these men were engaged. A large number of men were infected and one of them died. Later on I took up the matter with the Minister of Health and he immediately instructed, so he informed me, an inquiry to be made in order to arrive at some satisfactory conclusion as to what the cause of the disease was and possibly to prescribe a remedy.
My principal complaint is that from the beginning of January I have been putting forward questions to one Minister or Another and have got no satisfactory information. I was informed that medical officers were carefully considering the, whole matter and would make a report. Month after month I put the same question and asked, was there no finality to be arrived at so that I could take a message of hope to the district in which the disease had occurred, because many were leaving the district rather than work under such conditions and in the last analysis there were four men who had died of this disease and 15 or 16 had been affected? I want the House to understand that they had been infected with this disease, which is a sort of exaggerated form of jaundice, and it always leaves more or less permanent effects. I had been told that the Minister of Health is dealing with it, that the Home Office and the
Board of Agriculture were considering it and latterly that the Mines Department is considering it, and they seem to have considered it so much that I am in the position that unless I get some definite announcement now I shall be in the unfortunate position of having to go to the people and say nothing has been arrived at yet and that I cannot obtain any definite decision in the matter. I sincerely hope that the right hon. Gentleman will give me some hope and encouragement to take with me to that district, and that he will be able to tell me that at last we have got a grip of the disease.

The SECRETARY for SCOTLAND (Mr. William Adamson): The case brought before me by my hon. Friend the Member for the Rutherglen division of Lanarkshire (Mr. Wright) I have discussed recently. Some time ago he and another of my hon. Friends told me that allegations were being made as to the attitude of the police to the public and in particular that on several occasions prisoners had been assaulted by the police in the police cells. Immediately on getting that information from the two hon. Gentlemen, I got in touch with the Chief Constable for Lanarkshire I asked that the complaint should he inquired into and a report submitted to the Scottish Office. That report stated in effect that every constable stationed in the Blantyre district who could have access to cells where the prisoners were detained, emphatically denied that the alleged assaults had been committed and that no prisoner made a complaint either to the police officer or to the court in which he had been brought up as to the assault which had taken place. In view of the serious allegations that were made, and after consultation with the Law Officers of the Crown I asked the county clerk to have the matter considered by the standing joint committee with a view to an inquiry being held into these allegations. The county clerk replied stating that the standing joint committee had come to the conclusion that in view of the relations existing between them and the county constabulary it would be in appropriate for that committee to initiate an inquiry of the kind which had been suggested. Again, after consultation with the Law Officers of the Crown, we have communicated with the standing
joint committee and pointed out that in our opinion they were the appropriate body to institute an inquiry. They were the authority who had statutory powers to compel the necessary witnesses to be produced, and we asked that they would proceed with the matter. A reminder has again been sent to them asking that an inquiry take place at the earliest possible moment, and I can assure my friend there is no thought, so far as I am concerned and so far as the Scottish Office is concerned, of making any distinction between a miner and any other section of the community.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I ask for an answer to two questions? The right hon. Gentleman says that a letter has been sent to the county council. If the Joint Standing Committee again refuse to make an inquiry, will he take steps to hold an inquiry, and will the inquiry be a public one?

Mr. ADAMSON: I was pointing out that, so far from any distinction being drawn between a miner and any other section of the community, it would be the most natural thing for myself rather to have a leaning towards the miner than against him. Nothing of that kind comes into it at all, and let me point out to the hon. Members for Hamilton and Rutherglen that a public inquiry will be held in the matter. Now with regard to the serious disease that my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) has brought to my attention, I can assure him and the House that none of the Government Departments has been idle in regard to this matter can understand, if a considerable amount of time elapses before anything of a definite character is given in reply to questions such as my hon. Friend has been putting to me from time to time, that some amount of uncertainty is bound to be felt in the minds of the people concerned. The difficulty with regard to the disease that my hon. Friends have been calling my attention to is that it is of a serious character and the medical men, up to the present, have not been able to make up their minds as to the nature of the disease. At the moment the Medical Research Council are going into the matter. We expect in a very short time we will be able to get a report from that body which will enable
us to understand more about the disease than is the case at present. With regard to the other point that was put, as to whether it should not he placed in the scheduled diseases, I think he will admit, that until we know what the nature of the disease is it is too much to ask my right hon. Friend and colleague the Home Secretary to say that he will be prepared to put it into the list of scheduled diseases. What I can promise to my Friend is that whatever it is possible to do to accelerate the inquiry and to find out exactly what the nature of the disease is, and as to whether it is one that ought to be included in the scheduled diseases or otherwise, will be done. Whatever I can do to assist in order to elucidate the nature of the disease will be gladly done.

Mr. LINFIELD: On a point of Order. The Attorney-General promised to bring in a reply before five o'clock. Has the Deputy-Leader of the House anything to say on that question?

Mr. SPEAKER: I cannot answer that question.

Mr. CLARKE: Will the right hon. Gentleman just give this assurance, as he himself has suggested, on a previous occasion, that he would come into the district and that he will visit the collieries, because there are two large collieries that are affected, along with me, in order to allay the fears and anxieties that exist.

Mr. ADAMSON: I am quite prepared to fall in with the suggestion that has been made.

Mr. LIVINGSTONE: Before the right hon. Gentleman sits down, may I ask him to give me a reply to two questions. Will the Government take immediate steps to improve the housing in the crofting communities in the highlands, and will the Government take immediate steps, without delay, to reopen Loch Boisdale Pier?

Mr. ADAMSON: I have been endeavouring, as the hon. Member knows, to come to an agreement with the proprietors of the pier at Loch Boisdale and have given certain guarantees on behalf of the Government that ought to satisfy any reasonably-minded person. I regret to say that the guarantees, up to the present time, have not been accepted, as
far as Loch Boisdale Pier is concerned. In regard to the other point with regard to the houses, I have already told the hon. Member that is a matter we are going closely into.

It being Five of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution, of the House of 6th August.

Adjourned accordingly, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of this day, until Tuesday, 28th October, provided always
that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. SPEAKER, after consultation with His Majesty's Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during the Adjournment, Mr. SPEAKER may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in, such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time, and any Orders of the Day and Notices of Motions that may stand on the Order Book for the 28th day of October or any subsequent day shall be appointed for the day on which the House shall so meet.